US Savage Imperialism

[loosecannon]

I see proof that America is not the racist nation Chomsky says it is.

America was founded on racism and has continued that tradition to this day. You can't prove otherwise and can only imagine proof to the contrary.

 

[Revere]

There is no multiracial country on earth where any race gets a better deal than in the United States.

 

[daveman]

I see proof that America is not the racist nation Chomsky says it is.

America was founded on racism and has continued that tradition to this day. You can't prove otherwise and can only imagine proof to the contrary.

I'm imagining the black guy in the White House?

 

[loosecannon]

No, he's an idiot because he obviously doesn't understand anything about conservatism. Oh, he thinks he does, but that's only because he's repeating what he hears around the leftist echo chambers of academia. Reality is not welcome inside those hallowed halls.

Look, compared to Chomsky you are a certifiable idiot. Certifiable, as in provably true.

He certainly sees conservatism 100 times better and with better vision than you do. Because he has insights you can't possibly understand.

People with 115 IQ's generally can't even fathom the ideas of folks with IQ's as low as 140. But when folks with 170 IQ's try to communicate with folks who have remedial IQ's around 115 then communication is next to impossible.

Own up, you don't understand anything Chomsky talks about, but the big brains at the pentagon consider his ideas essential and therefore they finance his dept at MIT.

Meanwhile the big brains at the pentagon trust you to shovel dirt when it comes time to build fox holes and properly clean and load your weapon. But they absolutely will NOT let you fly a jet.

DO THE MATH!

 

[loosecannon]

I see proof that America is not the racist nation Chomsky says it is.

America was founded on racism and has continued that tradition to this day. You can't prove otherwise and can only imagine proof to the contrary.

I'm imagining the black guy in the White House?

who is supported by 90% of black Americans and only about 20% of white Americans.

IOW a completely racist delineation of support.

 

[loosecannon]

There is no multiracial country on earth where any race gets a better deal than in the United States.

Oh yeah, please prove as much, bullshitter.

Jews in Iran get better treatment than blacks, muslims and hispanics in the US.

 

[Cecilie1200]

nobody has ever quoted Satan. Even the bible doesn't list a single quote credited to Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub. There is a little passage wherein Jesus speaks with a legion of spirits, none of which are identified as Satan.

Wrong again. Book of Job, beginning with verse 7:

7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

Sure looks like a quote attributed to Satan to ME.

The Bible is #1 on that all time top ten list of which Chomsky is the only living example.

Satan quotes probably fall within the sphere of mythology and lies the rich tell.

Unlike Chomsky and Marx.

Oh, I don't know. I doubt Chomsky is exactly panhandling on the street, so his writings might qualify as "lies the rich tell". Certainly he's quoted and cited by enough rich leftist elites for it to qualify.

Come to think of it, the writings of both Chomsky and Marx would fall under the heading of "myths", too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unsurprisingly, you refuse to acknowledge his hypocrisy.

And now it seems he's not even a real linguist.

You haven't proven his hypocrisy.

I did, but mysteriously, your response contained nothing but personal attacks against me. Not a single word about the voluminous evidence I provided.

 

[daveman]

No, he's an idiot because he obviously doesn't understand anything about conservatism. Oh, he thinks he does, but that's only because he's repeating what he hears around the leftist echo chambers of academia. Reality is not welcome inside those hallowed halls.

Look, compared to Chomsky you are a certifiable idiot. Certifiable, as in provably true.

He certainly sees conservatism 100 times better and with better vision than you do. Because he has insights you can't possibly understand.

People with 115 IQ's generally can't even fathom the ideas of folks with IQ's as low as 140. But when folks with 170 IQ's try to communicate with folks who have remedial IQ's around 115 then communication is next to impossible.

Own up, you don't understand anything Chomsky talks about, but the big brains at the pentagon consider his ideas essential and therefore they finance his dept at MIT.

Meanwhile the big brains at the pentagon trust you to shovel dirt when it comes time to build fox holes and properly clean and load your weapon. But they absolutely will NOT let you fly a jet.

DO THE MATH!

I've done the math. The answer is you will swallow anything Chomsky tells you. The Pentagon doesn't pay him for his political opinions, as I've shown.

Your little tin god tells you capitalism is evil...as he cashes his big checks. He tells you the American military is evil...and they're the ones signing those big checks.

You're a useful idiot for a hypocrite, a willing tool. As such, you have no business comparing IQs with anyone.

 

[daveman]

America was founded on racism and has continued that tradition to this day. You can't prove otherwise and can only imagine proof to the contrary.

I'm imagining the black guy in the White House?

who is supported by 90% of black Americans and only about 20% of white Americans.

IOW a completely racist delineation of support.

Amazing how he got elected then, isn't it?

Or maybe you're just full of crap. Yes, that's far more likely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you got me, so satan went from the most quoted person on earth to somebody quoted once.

Perhaps you should do a little research before you make such absolute statements.

I just couldn't think of one case in which Satan was ever quoted, that's all.

And so you assumed that meant he never was. Brilliant.

 

[georgephillip]

Wow. Dean Baker is an idiot.

Because he doesn't publish on "Conspiracy Planet"?

"Dean Baker (b. July 13, 1958) is an American macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, with Mark Weisbrot.

"He previously was a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor of economics at Bucknell University.

"He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan."

Your Ph.D?

Your Wiki?

From Conspiracy Planet maybe?

No, he's an idiot because he obviously doesn't understand anything about conservatism. Oh, he thinks he does, but that's only because he's repeating what he hears around the leftist echo chambers of academia. Reality is not welcome inside those hallowed halls.

Does he understand incompetence and conflicting interests?

"Baker opposed the US government bailout of Wall Street banks on the basis that the only people who stood to lose from their collapse were their shareholders and well-paid CEOs.

"As regards any hypothetical, negative effects of not doing the bailout, he has explained that, 'We know how to keep the financial system operating even as banks go into bankruptcy and receivership,'[12] citing US government action taken during the S&L crisis of the 1980s.[13]

"He has ridiculed the US elite for favoring it, asking, 'How do you make a DC intellectual look less articulate than Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric?

"That's easy. You ask them how failure to pass the bailout will give us a Great Depression.'"

Know that answer, Chomsky?

 

[georgephillip]

Unsurprisingly, you refuse to acknowledge his hypocrisy.

And now it seems he's not even a real linguist.

You haven't proven his hypocrisy.

I did, but mysteriously, your response contained nothing but personal attacks against me. Not a single word about the voluminous evidence I provided.

Do you mean your voluminous "evidence" that contained no links and the confession you didn't "bother reading a single frigging word of this post...?"

Why would I take your word for it when you say Chomsky lied about Hamas being more willing to embrace a truce than the US or Israel?

Or that the "Right of Return" entails the "dissolution of Israel"?

See if you can respond without "dumbass" or "chucklehead" or any other substitute for critical thought.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm imagining the black guy in the White House?

who is supported by 90% of black Americans and only about 20% of white Americans.

IOW a completely racist delineation of support.

Amazing how he got elected then, isn't it?

Or maybe you're just full of crap. Yes, that's far more likely.

Or maybe he sucks up to rich white guys?

"Nicely in time for the end-of-year job ratings, President Obama has crawled from the political graveyard, where only a month ago wreaths were being heaped around his sepulcher.

"The Commentariat now gravely applauds his recent victories in the US Congress: repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell inhibitions on gays in the military; Senate ratification of the new START treaty on nuclear weapons with the Russians; passage of a $4.3bn bill – previously blocked by Republicans - providing health benefits for emergency rescue workers in the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

"Something missing from my list? You noticed? Yes indeed: first and absolutely foremost, the successful deal with Republicans on taxes, better described as a $4 trillion gift to America’s rich people, by extending the Bush tax cuts.

"With the all-important tax surrender under their belts the Republicans don’t seem too upset in having allowing Obama’s his mini-swath of victories.

"There aren’t too many votes in insisting that 1500 nukes aren’t enough for Uncle Sam, particularly since Obama did his usual trick a year ago of surrendering before the battle began, pledging vast new outlays to the nuclear-industrial-complex.

"Would it have been that smart to deny benefits to 9/11 responders or say that gays in the military have to stay in the closet.

"Presumably they’ll fight all the more fiercely now they can stand Out and Proud.

"On things that really matter, once they reassemble after the break, the Republicans will probably stay awake, though with a President who surrenders with the alacrity of Obama, excessive vigilance probably isn’t necessary."

Would you call Obama a "Surrender Monkey?"

Or a chickenshit?

CounterPunch

 

[daveman]

Because he doesn't publish on "Conspiracy Planet"?

"Dean Baker (b. July 13, 1958) is an American macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, with Mark Weisbrot.

"He previously was a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor of economics at Bucknell University.

"He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan."

Your Ph.D?

Your Wiki?

From Conspiracy Planet maybe?

No, he's an idiot because he obviously doesn't understand anything about conservatism. Oh, he thinks he does, but that's only because he's repeating what he hears around the leftist echo chambers of academia. Reality is not welcome inside those hallowed halls.

Does he understand incompetence and conflicting interests?

"Baker opposed the US government bailout of Wall Street banks on the basis that the only people who stood to lose from their collapse were their shareholders and well-paid CEOs.

"As regards any hypothetical, negative effects of not doing the bailout, he has explained that, 'We know how to keep the financial system operating even as banks go into bankruptcy and receivership,'[12] citing US government action taken during the S&L crisis of the 1980s.[13]

"He has ridiculed the US elite for favoring it, asking, 'How do you make a DC intellectual look less articulate than Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric?

"That's easy. You ask them how failure to pass the bailout will give us a Great Depression.'"

Know that answer, Chomsky?

He should understand incompetence, if he's studying this Administration.

 

[daveman]

who is supported by 90% of black Americans and only about 20% of white Americans.

IOW a completely racist delineation of support.

Amazing how he got elected then, isn't it?

Or maybe you're just full of crap. Yes, that's far more likely.

Or maybe he sucks up to rich white guys?

"Nicely in time for the end-of-year job ratings, President Obama has crawled from the political graveyard, where only a month ago wreaths were being heaped around his sepulcher.

"The Commentariat now gravely applauds his recent victories in the US Congress: repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell inhibitions on gays in the military; Senate ratification of the new START treaty on nuclear weapons with the Russians; passage of a $4.3bn bill – previously blocked by Republicans - providing health benefits for emergency rescue workers in the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

"Something missing from my list? You noticed? Yes indeed: first and absolutely foremost, the successful deal with Republicans on taxes, better described as a $4 trillion gift to America’s rich people, by extending the Bush tax cuts.

"With the all-important tax surrender under their belts the Republicans don’t seem too upset in having allowing Obama’s his mini-swath of victories.

"There aren’t too many votes in insisting that 1500 nukes aren’t enough for Uncle Sam, particularly since Obama did his usual trick a year ago of surrendering before the battle began, pledging vast new outlays to the nuclear-industrial-complex.

"Would it have been that smart to deny benefits to 9/11 responders or say that gays in the military have to stay in the closet.

"Presumably they’ll fight all the more fiercely now they can stand Out and Proud.

"On things that really matter, once they reassemble after the break, the Republicans will probably stay awake, though with a President who surrenders with the alacrity of Obama, excessive vigilance probably isn’t necessary."

Would you call Obama a "Surrender Monkey?"

Or a chickenshit?

CounterPunch

I'd call him an incompetent leftist...pardon the redundancy.

 

[georgephillip]

No, he's an idiot because he obviously doesn't understand anything about conservatism. Oh, he thinks he does, but that's only because he's repeating what he hears around the leftist echo chambers of academia. Reality is not welcome inside those hallowed halls.

Does he understand incompetence and conflicting interests?

"Baker opposed the US government bailout of Wall Street banks on the basis that the only people who stood to lose from their collapse were their shareholders and well-paid CEOs.

"As regards any hypothetical, negative effects of not doing the bailout, he has explained that, 'We know how to keep the financial system operating even as banks go into bankruptcy and receivership,'[12] citing US government action taken during the S&L crisis of the 1980s.[13]

"He has ridiculed the US elite for favoring it, asking, 'How do you make a DC intellectual look less articulate than Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric?

"That's easy. You ask them how failure to pass the bailout will give us a Great Depression.'"

Know that answer, Chomsky?

He should understand incompetence, if he's studying this Administration.

How has this Administration been anything except an exclamation point to Bush/Cheney as far as Wall Street and Afghanistan are concerned?

Maybe Obama and Bush are on the same side of the class war?

 

[mdn2000]

Obama and Bush on the same side of the war, George, they are the same side period, no maybe about it. Open your eyes, BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH, OBAMA, I see as the same, tyranny further destroying the greatest country in the world.



Partners in Hate: Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers

In March of 1989, not long after the appearance of the first edition of this book, A. M. Rosenthal of the New York Times wrote a column to mark the tenth anniversary of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. The column was generally favorable to Israel, although he also chided Israel for what he called its "historical error ** the refusal to recognize the reality of the Palestinian people and passion."

One of Rosenthal's points was that Jordan is a Palestinian state (Jordan's territory is situated in the original British mandate of Palestine), and Rosenthal opposed the creation of a second Palestinian state in this territory. This was enough to once again provoke Noam Chomsky's legendary bile. He wrote:

We might ask how the Times would react to an Arab claim that the Jews do not merit a 'second homeland' because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life. (1)

As it happened, Rosenthal did not use either the words or the concept of a "second homeland." Nonetheless, Chomsky saw fit to put these words between quotation marks to attribute them to Rosenthal. Chomsky habitually, as we shall see in the body of this book, misrepresents the writings of others. But let that pass for the moment.

What is actually most noteworthy in this passage is Chomsky's unpleasant tone about the Jews of New York and the fact that his malice does not conform to familiar "anti-Zionist" left-wing doctrines. Chomsky's target here is very simply Jews, without any pretense whatever about being "anti-Zionist-but-not-anti-Semitic."

When Chomsky wrote these words, there was indeed a Jewish mayor in New York, and a large Jewish population. There were Jews in the media on all levels. There were also many Jews in cultural and economic pursuits in New York. These facts are not in dispute.

But what are "Jewish-run media?" What is meant by a Jewish "domination of cultural and economic life?" These hateful expressions are staples of traditional anti-Semitism. They suggest that Jews do not act as individuals but only as agents of a larger Jewish cabal. The anti-Semitic propagandist says that Jewish artists and business men and journalists do not pursue such professions as other men would. No, to him such Jewish men and women are "running" the media, "dominating" culture and the economy, all in their capacity as Jews, all for the sake of a Jewish design.

But wait a minute. Is it Chomsky himself who makes these anti-Semitic allegations? Or is it some unnamed anti-Semitic Arab? Chomsky does not say. Nor is he explicit, assuming that it isn't he but rather his hypothetical Arab who is speaking, in telling us whether he would regard the accusations as justified.

But what he fails to do explicitly he does by indirection. By mixing legitimate facts with allegations of "running" media and "dominating" culture, all in the same sentence and in the same tone, he endorses and justifies the anti-Semitic assertions. And he does all this without taking direct responsibility. Chomsky, as always, is ** what is the word ** clever.

Actually we have here a fine example of the well-known Chomskyan method of devious ambiguity. He says the anti-Semitic thing by very clear implication, and then, with the wink of complicity to his neo-Nazi following that we shall encounter again, there is a built-in explanation of it all to his left-wing following: it is not I who would ever say such a thing, not I at all, but how can I help it if an oppressed Arab makes such interesting observations?

 

[georgephillip]

Republicans and Democrats go to the same 1% - 2% of US voters for their campaign funding.

Obama, both Bushes, Clinton and Reagan,etc, etc, serve the richest Americans at the expense of everyone else.

Apparently, for Wall Street and its Republican AND Democratic handmaidens the BIG PRIZE hasn't changed in the last six decades.

From CounterPunch

"The prime constant factor in American politics across the past six decades has been a counter-attack by the rich against the social reforms of the 1930s.

"Twenty years ago the supreme prize of the Social Security trust funds – the government pensions that changed the face of America in the mid-1930s - seemed far beyond Wall Street’s grasp.

"No Republican president could possibly prevail in such an enterprise.

"It would have to be an inside job by a Democrat.

"Clinton tried it, but the Lewinsky sex scandal narrowly aborted his bid.

"If Obama can be identified with one historic mission on behalf of capital it is this – and though success is by no means guaranteed, it is closer than it has ever been.

"This brings us to the upcoming 112th Congress, reflecting Republican gains in November, which will spend the evening of February 2 listening to Obama’s 'bipartisan' agenda laid out in his State of the Union address.

"The Politico website – reflecting informed political opinion in Washington DC - recently predicted that in this next address, 'the teleprompter in chief is expected to announce cuts in Social Security.'

"As Robert Kuttner of Politico speculates: Obama’s rationale will be 'to pre-empt an even more draconian set of budget cuts likely to be proposed by the incoming House Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan (R,Wisconsin), as a condition of extending the debt ceiling. This is expected to hit in April.'"

Wall Street knew exactly what it was doing when it anointed Obama in 2008. The rich needed a (black) rock star with roots to Lincoln to make a final push on Social Security.

Since most on the Left are incapable of judging Obama by anything except the color of his skin, they might very well be successful this time.

 

[daveman]

Does he understand incompetence and conflicting interests?

"Baker opposed the US government bailout of Wall Street banks on the basis that the only people who stood to lose from their collapse were their shareholders and well-paid CEOs.

"As regards any hypothetical, negative effects of not doing the bailout, he has explained that, 'We know how to keep the financial system operating even as banks go into bankruptcy and receivership,'[12] citing US government action taken during the S&L crisis of the 1980s.[13]

"He has ridiculed the US elite for favoring it, asking, 'How do you make a DC intellectual look less articulate than Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric?

"That's easy. You ask them how failure to pass the bailout will give us a Great Depression.'"

Know that answer, Chomsky?

He should understand incompetence, if he's studying this Administration.

How has this Administration been anything except an exclamation point to Bush/Cheney as far as Wall Street and Afghanistan are concerned?

Maybe Obama and Bush are on the same side of the class war?

The only people fighting the class war are you classless buffoons.