Thread: Noam Chomsky

Originally Posted by attaboy

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky

Chomsky needs to post a comment about the sinister PC bunch and their desire to limit the spectrum of terms and words to choose from.

Good point, Atta.

Chomsky has already.

But he basically BANNED from the MAINSTREAM MEDIA in the U.S.

The PC hate him.

The Jews hate him.

Liberals hate him.

Conservatives hate.

Not much room left.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by DrB0b

^Damn! There's a big debate in the linguistic community at the moment about the errors in Chomsky's transformational grammars. I can't understand a word of it. I was hoping Booner could explain it to me.

There always was and always will be debate in the linguistic community about this and that.

And Chomsky's linguistic work, while heuristic, is outdated.

But linguistics ain't the topic. If you want a linguistic forum PM me.

I know many linguistic forums and post on them, thanks, it's something that interests me greatly but right now it's not relevant. Right now, on Teakdoor as opposed to a specialized forum, I'm interested in Boon Mees' statement that

That's about the only thing he's been right about in his entire 'career'.

I don't want a linguistic debate here, I just want Boon Mee to back up that statement. I have a strong suspicion he's talking rubbish - if he's not I'll admit he was right, but I want to hear why he thinks that everything Chomsky said, except in regard to Oswald, is wrong, remember that Chomsky has said a lot of things in many different areas. Nobody has yet been able to prove hm wrong in everything. Boon Mee says he can do it and that's a pretty big deal - I for one can't wait for him to expose Chomsky for the fraud Boon Mee says he is. I'll say here and now that I think Booner is making it up and doesn't understand 1% of what Chomsky says. I'm asking him to put his money where his mouth is, I don't think he can do it. He says almost everything Chomsky has said is wrong, I want Boon Mee to show us how that is the case. Go back in this thread, this time read all the responses, and tell us if you agree with Booners statement that everything Chomsky has said, with the sole exception of Oswald being a lone gunman, is wrong.

I have a sneaking suspicion that many in the anti-Chomsky camp know nothing whatsoever about him except what they've read on blogs - I don't believe for an instant that Boon Mee has ever read a book or heard a lecture by Chomsky but I'm asking him to prove me wrong by backing up his statement that

Originally Posted by BoonMee

That's about the only thing he's been right about in his entire 'career'.

Is that clear? It's not about linguistics - it's about people making sweeping statements without backing them up. Chomsky is seen in Europe as one of the world's greatest living intellectuals, I want Boon Mee to show us how somebody who's considered one of the worlds greatest living intellectuals is wrong in everything he's ever said aside from Oswald not being a lone gunman.

Looking forward to your analysis of Chomsky's linguistic errors.

Perhaps Chomsky should stick with linguistics. It's like a professional ball player going off and trying to make out as if he's an expert in astronomy.

If Chomsky wasn't jewish and didn't have the backing of his jewish colloborators in the educational and publishing fields, we most likely wouldn't have to put up with his male cow dung being spread about like fertilizer to feed your minds of mush. Now with the internet taking control away from him and his buddies, his foolishness is becoming obvious to the critical thinkers among us.

Is that clear?
It's not about linguistics - it's about people making sweeping statements without backing them up. Chomsky is seen in Europe as one of the world's greatest living intellectuals, I want Boon Mee to show us how somebody who's considered one of the worlds greatest living intellectuals is wrong in everything he's ever said aside from Oswald not being a lone gunman.

Chomsky is an idiot if he thinks Oswald acted alone. Period. Is that clear?

Chomsky is an idiot if he thinks that the ZOG [ie, the US] being involved in 9/11 is an impossibility. Chomsky rants on and on in his books about the rougue terrorist nature of the US government, but then makes the ridiculous assertion that it is an impossibility that that same government was involved in 9/11?

It's Chomsky that makes sweeping statements that he can't and refuses to back up, saying that even discussing the topic is foolishness. And people like you accept his assumed right to limit the debate to within the parameters he himself sets. He's not in the undergraduate class at MIT. He's in the real world when he steps outside the protected enclave of MIT.

Is that clear?

Perhaps Chomsky's hatred of America's ruling class is so thorough that he can't even conceive of a sitting president getting wacked by its more rabid elements for being too progressive. In Chomsky's eyes, a progressive American leader would be an impossibility. Recall that in 1976, a US House of Representatives committee concluded with 95% certainty that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. No one can accuse them of being conspiracy kooks. Numerous well-researched books on the subject poke huge holes in the Warren Commission. Chomsky seems to be brilliant in every other respect, but Kerux may be correct about this particular flaw in Chomsky's thinking.

I picked up some books by Chomsky in Bangkok once, skimmed through them and read the blurbs. Didn't see much I hadn't already known. Don't need to give that intellectual fraud my few baht.

Now, according you some of you, you have to have read books and not have gleaned info from the internet in order to be relevant and informed?

Great, I'll remember that when discussing the Bible.

Show me one quote of Chomsky's where he blames the problems we face on Zionism.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Kerux being against him is pretty much proof that chomsky is on the side of the angels. By the way kerux, it's considered good form to point out when you're cutting and pasting from somebody else's writing - your post above was copied directly from questionsquestions without any acknowledgment. Actually looks like oilempires plagiarised it from there before you plagiarised it from them. Stealing makes Baby Jesus cry! Don't you have any opinions of your own or are you just a palimpsest?


—Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc. http://www.questionsquestions.net/to...tekeepers.htmL

Your full of male cow dung again. I didn't cite from the link you posted, and the site I did post from was plainly linked.

Here it is: Where Noam will not roam - Chomsky's limited dissent on 9/11 and JFK

What are we expected to do now, follow our links back to the source? And since when is posting info and the link plagerzising? Or stealing?

Not only that, had you actually spent some time investigating instead of being in such a hurry to falsely accuse me of plagerizing and stealing, you might have found this reference link at the bottom of the page I cited.
Michael Parenti on Noam Chomsky and JFK, as a characteristic example of Left anticonspiracism:
Conspiracy Phobia on the Left www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html


You're the drunk who needs to stop pointing out the toothpicks in the eyes of others, and work on removing that timber from your ass.

Originally Posted by kerux

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by kerux

Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.

That's about the only thing he's been right about in his entire 'career'.
Oswald was the only gunman whether you conspiracy nutjobs believe it or not...

Oswald 'had no time to fire all Kennedy bullets'


By Tim Shipman in Washington, Sunday Telegraph


Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone in assassinating President John F Kennedy, according to a new study by Italian weapons experts of the type of rifle Oswald used in the shootings.

n fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.



Oswald 'had no time to fire all Kennedy bullets' | International News | News | Telegraph

Us nutjobs don't have a problem with impossibilities like you sane people do. Or intellectuals like Chomsky

It's been proven time and time again that Oswald would have had lots of time to get off those three shots. And, he was a crack shot.

Just another bullshit conspiracy theory...