OMG Noam Chomsky Says Sarah Palin was right about Obama

[Stephanie]

the left criticize him for being TOO far right...so it's the LEFT that is causing all his problems?..And how friggen LEFT do they want?

And if Obama is center right than I'm the queen of England

 

[Truthseeker420]

the left criticize him for being TOO far right...so it's the LEFT that is causing all his problems?..And how friggen LEFT do they want?

And if Obama is center right than I'm the queen of England

Not sure. It worked great for Abe Lincoln until a radical right winger shot him.

How is the weather in England?

 

[mudwhistle]

Hell's frozen over and heads are exploding at DU and Daily Kos.

This is wild!

Probably the last person you’d expect to cite Sarah Palin favorably is Noam Chomsky. Yet in an interview with the Leftist news organization Democracy Now, Chomsky did precisely that, saying Palin was right to mock Obama for his lack of substance.

“I don’t usually admire Sarah Palin,” Chomsky said, “but when she was making fun of this ‘hopey changey stuff,’ she was right, there was nothing there.



Noam Chomsky Says Sarah Palin Was Right About Obama’s Lack of Substance | Video | TheBlaze.com

ETA: for you libs who are afraid to go to the Blaze for fear it might give you cooties, the original link for the Noam Chomsky piece is at the National Review.

Hope this works for you.

Noam Chomsky: Sarah Palin Right About ‘Hopey Changey’ Stuff - By Noah Glyn - The Corner - National Review Online

All you have to do is drive onto a military installation and you'll notice a glaring difference from 4 years ago.

The grass is 2 and 3 feet high. It used to be that military reservations were kept up, but now you have all of the troops back home and the grass is not getting mowed. We've had a 3 year hiring freeze. Every maintenance shop is short on help. Even while the number of buildings on the facilities is going up the number of people available to take care of them is going down.

The up-tick in construction that we've seen the last 5 years is beginning to taper off and now all of that equipment is starting to break down because of one thing or another. More and more advanced HVAC systems being improperly installed and nobody knows how to maintain or repair it because the follow up classes were never conducted.

It's a mess.

 

[bripat9643]

Have any of you even bother to read Chomsky?

He sees conspiracies in everything. Watching him and Buckley go at it was fun..but Chomsky is a little on the whacky side.

You've obviously never read Chomsky, liar.

Yes he has. The guy is a paranoid loon.

 

[Barb]

Have any of you even bother to read Chomsky?

He sees conspiracies in everything. Watching him and Buckley go at it was fun..but Chomsky is a little on the whacky side.

You've obviously never read Chomsky, liar.

Yes he has. The guy is a paranoid loon.

No, he's a scholar who makes interdisciplinary connections to what is going on around him, and us. Things tend to work together.
Take marketing. Some products are complementary. Eggs are placed in the supermarket near to the bacon, biscuits, and butter. Sauerkraut is near the Kielbasa. Few of these are produced in the same places, but they're placed together in stores to increase the saleability of each complementary product.
Politics and social issues work in a similar way for pragmatic use in crafting policy and the demand for policy that serves a habitually hidden larger purpose and an increasingly narrow entitlement class. These are called strategic initiatives.
Social issues that are important to a weighty demographic might also serve a couple complementary aims of a specific political party and their corporate or religious sponsors.
Issues of national defense preys on fear of the unknown, and also funnels money to the military industrial complex that donates most heavily to the politicians who encourage those fears.
Political support of fundamental religious sensitivities about birth control pander to the paternalistic amongst us as a voting demographic, and the political sponsorship of those sensitivities also tries to retard equal opportunity for a good half of our population by forcing those religious restrictions on citizens who have different or polar opposite religious leanings, all the while offering corporations the ability, codified in our supposedly secular form of government, to discriminate against women (and only women, as men are not ever scrutinized in such ways in re: Viagra) based on religious grounds.
Intellectual property laws seem like something anyone could get behind, don't they? They do, as plagiarism is universally frowned upon, isn't it? Kind of, until one takes into consideration that the corporation one works for has one sign a release that states that, as an employee, one has NO actual right to the content (no citation, no credit, no royalties) one contributed to said corporation. In this case, plagiarism is codified into law, into policy.

Chomsky's nuts? A conspiracy theorist?

Shit, if you aren't really pissed off at what goes on around you, you really aren't paying attention.

 

[uscitizen]

Tiny dancer quoting Chomsky????

Now that is just plumb strange.

 

[mudwhistle]

Tiny dancer quoting Chomsky????

Now that is just plumb strange.

They said the same when I quoted the Black-Eyed Peas in my signature.

"Cons can't possibly be cool" I think is the assumption. Same with having an education. Everybody knows all Repugs are NASCAR fans with a 6th Grade education.


Sorry, but most of those folks are typically Dems around here. They don't vote GOP because they're for "The Rich".

 

[uscitizen]

You've obviously never read Chomsky, liar.

Yes he has. The guy is a paranoid loon.

No, he's a scholar who makes interdisciplinary connections to what is going on around him, and us. Things tend to work together.
Take marketing. Some products are complementary. Eggs are placed in the supermarket near to the bacon, biscuits, and butter. Sauerkraut is near the Kielbasa. Few of these are produced in the same places, but they're placed together in stores to increase the saleability of each complementary product.
Politics and social issues work in a similar way for pragmatic use in crafting policy and the demand for policy that serves a habitually hidden larger purpose and an increasingly narrow entitlement class. These are called strategic initiatives.
Social issues that are important to a weighty demographic might also serve a couple complementary aims of a specific political party and their corporate or religious sponsors.
Issues of national defense preys on fear of the unknown, and also funnels money to the military industrial complex that donates most heavily to the politicians who encourage those fears.
Political support of fundamental religious sensitivities about birth control pander to the paternalistic amongst us as a voting demographic, and the political sponsorship of those sensitivities also tries to retard equal opportunity for a good half of our population by forcing those religious restrictions on citizens who have different or polar opposite religious leanings, all the while offering corporations the ability, codified in our supposedly secular form of government, to discriminate against women (and only women, as men are not ever scrutinized in such ways in re: Viagra) based on religious grounds.
Intellectual property laws seem like something anyone could get behind, don't they? They do, as plagiarism is universally frowned upon, isn't it? Kind of, until one takes into consideration that the corporation one works for has one sign a release that states that, as an employee, one has NO actual right to the content (no citation, no credit, no royalties) one contributed to said corporation. In this case, plagiarism is codified into law, into policy.

Chomsky's nuts? A conspiracy theorist?

Shit, if you aren't really pissed off at what goes on around you, you really aren't paying attention.

Well said.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes he has. The guy is a paranoid loon.

No, he's a scholar who makes interdisciplinary connections to what is going on around him, and us. Things tend to work together.
Take marketing. Some products are complementary. Eggs are placed in the supermarket near to the bacon, biscuits, and butter. Sauerkraut is near the Kielbasa. Few of these are produced in the same places, but they're placed together in stores to increase the saleability of each complementary product.
Politics and social issues work in a similar way for pragmatic use in crafting policy and the demand for policy that serves a habitually hidden larger purpose and an increasingly narrow entitlement class. These are called strategic initiatives.
Social issues that are important to a weighty demographic might also serve a couple complementary aims of a specific political party and their corporate or religious sponsors.
Issues of national defense preys on fear of the unknown, and also funnels money to the military industrial complex that donates most heavily to the politicians who encourage those fears.
Political support of fundamental religious sensitivities about birth control pander to the paternalistic amongst us as a voting demographic, and the political sponsorship of those sensitivities also tries to retard equal opportunity for a good half of our population by forcing those religious restrictions on citizens who have different or polar opposite religious leanings, all the while offering corporations the ability, codified in our supposedly secular form of government, to discriminate against women (and only women, as men are not ever scrutinized in such ways in re: Viagra) based on religious grounds.
Intellectual property laws seem like something anyone could get behind, don't they? They do, as plagiarism is universally frowned upon, isn't it? Kind of, until one takes into consideration that the corporation one works for has one sign a release that states that, as an employee, one has NO actual right to the content (no citation, no credit, no royalties) one contributed to said corporation. In this case, plagiarism is codified into law, into policy.

Chomsky's nuts? A conspiracy theorist?

Shit, if you aren't really pissed off at what goes on around you, you really aren't paying attention.

Well said.

Well said but cynical.

It's the basis for Marxism.

In more simpler terms...."Life sometimes isn't fair". Kind of the illustrates the absurdity of the "fairness" argument.

 

[mudwhistle]

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" illustrated how futile good intentions can be.

 

[Sallow]

Have any of you even bother to read Chomsky?

He sees conspiracies in everything. Watching him and Buckley go at it was fun..but Chomsky is a little on the whacky side.

You've obviously never read Chomsky, liar.

I've read "What we say, goes"..and have watched Chomsky thoughout my lifetime on the tube.

It's a little silly of you to get personal about this, as well.

Chomsky..as I've said..gets the history right..most of the time.

It's just that I don't agree with his conclusions. Alot of US policy is a reaction to some very messy geopolitics. It's not the result of some grand conspiracy to rule the world.

 

[Sallow]

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" illustrated how futile good intentions can be.

If that's what you come away with..I sorta don't think you get Orwell.

 

[mudwhistle]

Have any of you even bother to read Chomsky?

He sees conspiracies in everything. Watching him and Buckley go at it was fun..but Chomsky is a little on the whacky side.

You've obviously never read Chomsky, liar.

I've read "What we say, goes"..and have watched Chomsky thoughout my lifetime on the tube.

It's a little silly of you to get personal about this, as well.

Chomsky..as I've said..gets the history right..most of the time.

It's just that I don't agree with his conclusions. Alot of US policy is a reaction to some very messy geopolitics. It's not the result of some grand conspiracy to rule the world.

In all seriousness, there is a socialist movement to rule the world's economy.

 

[mudwhistle]

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" illustrated how futile good intentions can be.

If that's what you come away with..I sorta don't think you get Orwell.

I don't think "Animal Farm" fully encompasses all that is George Orwell, but then again, that wasn't my point.

The story shows that folks always think they have a better solution till they try to put it into practice. They soon discover that it's never as easy as they assumed.

 

[The T]

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" illustrated how futile good intentions can be.

If that's what you come away with..I sorta don't think you get Orwell.

I don't think "Animal Farm" fully encompasses all that is George Orwell, but then again, that wasn't my point.

The story shows that folks always think they have a better solution till they try to put it into practice. They soon discover that it's never as easy as they assumed.

And they revamp the idea...still doesn't work...revamp again...no go...rinse, repeat.

 

[Sallow]

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" illustrated how futile good intentions can be.

If that's what you come away with..I sorta don't think you get Orwell.

I don't think "Animal Farm" fully encompasses all that is George Orwell, but then again, that wasn't my point.

The story shows that folks always think they have a better solution till they try to put it into practice. They soon discover that it's never as easy as they assumed.

That's a better and much more astute take away..

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't believe in absolutes in everything.

It is not a requirement to be 100% in line with someone to agree with them when they start making sense.

 

[The T]

You've obviously never read Chomsky, liar.

I've read "What we say, goes"..and have watched Chomsky thoughout my lifetime on the tube.

It's a little silly of you to get personal about this, as well.

Chomsky..as I've said..gets the history right..most of the time.

It's just that I don't agree with his conclusions. Alot of US policy is a reaction to some very messy geopolitics. It's not the result of some grand conspiracy to rule the world.

In all seriousness, there is a socialist movement to rule the world's economy.

With Soros financing it all...

 

[Sallow]

You've obviously never read Chomsky, liar.

I've read "What we say, goes"..and have watched Chomsky thoughout my lifetime on the tube.

It's a little silly of you to get personal about this, as well.

Chomsky..as I've said..gets the history right..most of the time.

It's just that I don't agree with his conclusions. Alot of US policy is a reaction to some very messy geopolitics. It's not the result of some grand conspiracy to rule the world.

In all seriousness, there is a socialist movement to rule the world's economy.

Not "rule". But take over certain functions.

Whether or not you want to come to grips with it..the US Constitution is radically far more "socialist" then what proceeded it. As was the "idea" of a parliament and the Magna Carta was in the 13th century.

 

[konradv]

Chomsky? Who but the wingnuts pay any attention to him?