Stingray24 wrote:
[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
You guys are just pathetic - like I said wave your left hand to dismiss your right hand. At least I posted fact, not some opinionated bullshit like you clowns do. You don't have to like Chomsky, you don't have to like the references, but until you actually read about anything I said from several unbiased sources your opinions are indeed misguided.
Look at what Kr@cker said, he posts all sorts of tainted shit in thread after thread, and when confronted this is what he comes up with, "boring." The facts are boring you are they? You are one of the most ignorant sob's I've run into on bf2s.
Then there is Stingray24 who posts similar taint in thread after thread (I refer you to most main posts in debate & serious talk) and he comes up with Chomsky has no credibility with him (who the fuck is Stingray24 that he can even compare himself anyway?) based on the fact that Chomsky believes in social rights? Being liberal and socialist is a bad thing? Gimme a break, you might as well resort to Republican tricks of fear mongering and call him a communist! But then again, you guys are too stupid to confront any established fact above, and rather play, ignore the fact, attack the author. It's not like anything Chomsky says isn't in the established historical record, give me a fucking break.
I don't know why I bother with useless kids like you - you don't read, you just spout opinion that you've already formed based on your two party system, and all it does is allow Democrats and Republicans to avoid any issue, polarize it, and take sides based on little to no fact. Hell, just call someone a communist and that voids everything they said factual or not right? Laff, it is no wonder Bush is in office with voters like you. Good luck to your country.
Fact? You’re convinced he’s right, so why bother to try to convince you your man is wrong. That would be futile. Your sources are biased to your opinion, mine would be biased to mine. No such thing as an unbiased opinion.
I enjoy it when people insult my intelligence because I don’t feel the author’s they quote are credible. And I did not compare myself to Chomsky in any manner, though it apparently riled you up because you had to say fuck. If you get so worked up over your author being criticized perhaps you should take a break from the forums. Don’t have a coronary.
I didn’t say he was liberal, either. Rather he is a type of socialist. a libertarian socialist, a label he has applied to himself. Look up what libertarian socialists believe and support and you’ll see why I don’t think he has credibility. As a libertarian socialist he is sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism. They view seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, because they believe such ownership leads to class divisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalist Ready to sign up for that? You ignored the fact he is also part of the IWW which wants to abolish wages in favor of one huge union for all workers . . . that’s ridiculous.
Between the labels he applies to himself and the harebrained ideas he supports, that’s why I think he has no credibility. That is an opinion I have formed by reading his own work off his website and also those who support his ideas. Not from the RNC. Also, The New York Times has called him “arguably the most important intellectual alive.” That alone makes me spit out my glass of water when you call Chomsky factual. Thanks for the good luck to the US. It’s fun down here. Good luck to you up north.
And I quote myself, "like I said wave your left hand to dismiss your right hand."
You have addressed absolutely no issues I raised, other then to summarily dismiss it because you don't agree with the author + pages of sources - yet you have raised no credentials of your own (so you have an opinion, no credentials, and no facts - at least I have an opinion + facts), nor consulted any relatively unbiased sources to back up any claims you have made (not that you made any, you just dismissed it all). You believe you don't have to, because you already believe in what you've said. When confronted with new things obstructing your distorted view, you refuse to admit them in to evidence. You are hardly an impartial judge on this matter.
But that is beyond my whole point, that it is not about opinion, but going back to historical record and fact, and finding out that yes indeed America has caused, supported, and continues to effect terrorism throughout the globe, meanwhile proclaiming constant rhetoric about how America is always right and doing the best for the good of the world (not just for itself). Of course Chomsky has formed an opinion, that is that this culture of power is rooted in logic, self preservation of wealth and power, and that is an understandable effect of being human, but where his opinion differs from others is that, what America presents itself as, is not what America really is doing, and that, what it is doing, is not ok for the good of the average American, nor for the good of the world.
I do not subscribe to any of Chomsky's personal beliefs - I am not him, but his reliance on factual historical record, instead of manipulating everything to suit a personal outlook, makes him a far better judge of the situation then you are. I would trust the conclusions these two books make, but not neccesarily any personal opinion he has on his life. Why? Because I've read the books, but I have not lived his life - the point is you shouldn't be judging the man, but what he has to say and is it realistic? Is it based on fact? Is it logical and fair? Is it biased and completely tainted? Or is there a reason for that outlook? Is it acceptable? Etc. Alas, you decide that you don't want to hear any of it because you are judging the author, who frankly is not a tainted person like you make him out to be - regardless, you should be addressing the issues of terrorism such as was the topic of this post you created, rather then ignoring everything. You should run for office, you would do well at ignoring the facts and spinning everything to suit your own need, meanwhile real people attempt to address real problems.
Yes sources will always be biased, afterall anything anyone ever says is considered opinion. However, like Ironchef says we are looking for credibility, and that implies being realistic. It is not realistic to dismiss all the facts raised by Chomsky, just because you disagree with him on a fundamental level. You call his credibilty into question, yet your just as opinionated as Chomsky is, however, you just have an opinion; Chomsky utilizes facts in an fair and scientific manner, has an extensive academic and published record. If you disagree with him on certain issues, by all means enlighten us how America has not supported through the various means mentioned, terrorism in the past and present? Sure America has done good things, especially its citizens, but that doesn't mean you get to turn a blind eye to all the bad things, especially around the globe, not just in America. I'm not here to argue about your personal opinion, rather, I write all this in the hopes that some people down there will realize some bad shit has been going on, and its time to do something about it, it is your future afterall.
If you think everything is a-ok by all means continue on doing what your doing, but like Einstein said, the next war after the 3rd WW will be fought with sticks and stones...