|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 8th, 2003 04:00 AM | |||||
| The_Rorschach |
SORRY  I'm just curious what kind of person can follow Chomsky. He seems. . .fucken nutters. I guess I was hoping someone would try and seriiusly defend him. "And I question all the people I listen to constantly. Many times I disagree or they are flat out wrong. Just because I constantly don't shout out about it doesn't mean that always agree with them." They not extreme enough for your Vince? |
||||
| May 7th, 2003 01:01 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
His talk is eugenic in its premise, which in my opinion, yes, makes him a flat out piece of crap racist. And watching you defend his "methods" is quite amusing. What about the line about the girl scouts getting a thrill from the prospect of being raped? I guess he's just "from another era," right Vince? What era might that be? I guess he's not much of a fan for charity work, huh? We've had the Chomsky inquisition, now it's time for you to give some answers. |
||||
| May 7th, 2003 12:58 PM | |||||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
| May 7th, 2003 12:24 PM | |||||
| mburbank | Wait a second, wait a SECOND now? Are you in some way pointing to the fact I'm a Jew? 'Caue I missed that. | ||||
| May 7th, 2003 12:10 PM | |||||
| VinceZeb | Yes, Max, that is your right. AS it is mine to think you would sell out your family for a pack of Kosher hot dogs. | ||||
| May 7th, 2003 12:08 PM | |||||
| mburbank |
Is that what it takes to be a biggot, Vinth? If so, there's almost no biggotry at all in this country. Of course he has a right to express himself however he chooses, as I already said. You have a right to like him. I have a right not to be at all surprised by that. You might think it's eccentric, I think it's slimy, repulsive and ignorant. It's not a matter of PC. I don't believe in PC you browridged guinea closet case. I'm not 'offended' by him, I just think he's a sack of shit. That's my right, isn't it? |
||||
| May 7th, 2003 11:59 AM | |||||
| VinceZeb | He has a right to his opinion, Max. But because he is using the wrong terms to convey a point doesn't make him a prick. It may make him a bit excentric, but not a bigot. He has not called for whites to dominate society, has he? | ||||
| May 7th, 2003 11:57 AM | |||||
| mburbank |
Vinth; I know Boortz has a lengthy screed about how Racism and Bigotry mean different things, and I know how much correct word usage means to you, so lets just say comparing Hispanics to rabbits makes him biggot and lot's of other things he says just make him a human bag of crap. Your allowed to like him. It's not like it's a surprise. |
||||
| May 7th, 2003 10:46 AM | |||||
| VinceZeb |
Does he think that the white race is better than every other race based on genetics, Max? Not that I have seen. So you would be advised to pull back your race card. So he calls third world nations "turd world nations". Big fucking deal. Argue the statement that these countries aren't shit. And FAIR, because you know they have NO political bias (  ) points out that the countries are non-white, like he made the statements based on that fact.
|
||||
| May 7th, 2003 10:11 AM | |||||
| mburbank |
Even if you find his 'logic' appealing, don't you feel that the conclusions of a man who uses 'methods' like his are questionable? More pertinent; Do you like him? Do you enjoy him? Do you feel he serves your views? Does it bother you that he thinks rape is funny if the right people are raped? Or that Latino's 'breed like rabbits'? It's probbly becuase they're 'hot'. Even if his logic was unasailable (and it isn't) might he not be promoting all sorts of very bad stuff while disseminating this 'logic'. I'm not questioning his right to speech, I'm saying, the guys a pig, right? A vicious ugly racist son of a bitch, right? I mean, Hitler was great for the train schedules, but he was still monster, right? The ends don't justify the means, do they? |
||||
| May 7th, 2003 08:43 AM | |||||
| VinceZeb |
I will defend what I can defend. When he talked about the killing of kids by guns, he was correct in what he said, but he said it in an extreme way. A lot of the kids that are "killed" by guns are actually gang members below the age of 21. They are not talking about accidental shootings inside the home as a seperate entity, it is lumped together with the gang-bangin thugs that are out there. What he said was factually correct but not P.C. White people don't produce as many offspring as "minority" people. That is a statistical truth. Now, is it because they are trying to push homosexuality down white people's throat? No, that is just being stupid. BUT, you have to agree that as a society we do push homosexuality down people's throats a lot. And who is the one tanget of society that always wants to be seen as "open" and "caring" and "understanding"? White people. |
||||
| May 6th, 2003 11:01 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Actually, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but not even RONNIE RAYGUN will defend this man. That places poor old Vince in a small category of fringe weirdos and racists. 
|
||||
| May 6th, 2003 10:40 PM | |||||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
Vince, did you even READ these quotes? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
| May 6th, 2003 10:34 PM | |||||
| VinceZeb | You can argue with his methods, but not the logic. | ||||
| May 6th, 2003 10:30 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Apparently Vince finds little difficulty in it. | ||||
| May 6th, 2003 10:18 PM | |||||
| Jeanette X |
My God, this man is a monster!  How can anyone defend him?!
|
||||
| May 6th, 2003 10:15 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Vince, you really need to stop coming to the aid of racists and morons. It makes it all the easier to discredit you, which is ALREADY pretty damn easy: http://www.fair.org/activism/msnbc-savage.html Savage routinely refers to non-white countries as "turd world nations" and charges that the U.S. "is being taken over by the freaks, the cripples, the perverts and the mental defectives" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00). In a recent broadcast he justified ethnic slurs as a national security tool: "We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy," he explained (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/6/03). "Turd world" immigrants are a frequent target of Savage's anger: "You open the door to them, and the next thing you know, they are defecating on your country and breeding out of control" (Oregonian, 4/24/02). At times Savage's arguments echo the conspiratorial scapegoating of the white supremacist movement: "With the [Latino] population that has emerged, since they breed like rabbits, in many cases the whites will become a minority in their own nation... The white people don't breed as often for whatever reason. I guess many homosexuals are involved. That is also part of the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on the white race" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00). Commenting on the "Million Mom March" in favor of gun control (which he dubbed the "Million Dyke March"), he dismissed organizers' reference to American children killed by guns (5/15/00): "They뭨e not kids, they뭨e ghetto slime... they뭨e the same kids that are in Sierra Leone toting AK47s." Misogyny and homophobia are staples of Savage's show as well as racism. In his book Savage Nation, he argues that Sen. Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor have "feminized and homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic." Discussing student volunteers distributing food to the homeless in San Francisco, Savage declared that "the girls from Branson [school] can go in and maybe get raped... because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00). --- |
||||
| May 6th, 2003 01:17 PM | |||||
| mburbank |
Not much clearer, just properly supported so it can be responded. Is that SO much to ask, concidering the stte of current computer search technology. Never mind, I'll do it myself at some point and then I'll respond. I think I see the niche you're going for and currently it's wide open. Right wing Republicans who have no problem admitting they're perverts. I think that's great. Right wing republicans are often brought low by their hypocrisy when it comes to vice, and perahps you can help people of your 'ilk' acept themsleves. Bravo. Think how happy Bill Bennet would be today had his book been titled "Fuck you, I can gamble with my own money if I want to" instead of "The Book of Virtues". Think how much better off Jimmy Swaggart would be had he just one time preeched on the Godliness of watching prostitutes masturbate. Why even Bill Clinton might have benefitted from an open minded philosiphy like yours. He should have had a cigar plank in his platform. You begin to convince me that you are indeed more your own person than... well, Naldo so far, but its a start. I'm not all that impressed with this weak comment, though. "I disagree with Michael Savage's approach when it comes to the younger generation of our country." First, you don't say what his 'approach' is, and 'approach' is pretty nicey nicey word for someone as nasty as Mike Savage. Surely you can find more to disagree with than just some vague 'approach'. |
||||
| May 6th, 2003 12:43 PM | |||||
| VinceZeb |
Boortz thinks we should legalize all drugs, I do not think that is a good idea. We disagree. How much plainer can it get? I disagree with Michael Savage's approach when it comes to the younger generation of our country. He alienates a lot of would be conservatives/libertarians and I am one of the people that is not a country club conservative that points out that you can want to be in an orgy with a troop of schoolgirls but yet want tax cuts as the same time. |
||||
| May 6th, 2003 12:25 PM | |||||
| mburbank |
"Liiberatarians" is a very broad group, one that it would be next too impossible to fall into lock step with. My speciffic request was that you find something, anything in Boortz you disagree wiith, but I'll let you off the hook. Find someone you agree with say about %75 of the time with. Give me a name and find me something they said that you don't agree with. I'm not saying you can't, in fact, I think you probably can. I am giving you a chance to increase your credability. I'm responding to your arguments. Are you up to it? |
||||
| May 6th, 2003 11:18 AM | |||||
| VinceZeb | Simple. Complete legalization of drugs. Libertarians agree with it, I do not. | ||||
| May 6th, 2003 11:13 AM | |||||
| mburbank |
Have you read it? It's really good and quite funny. I think even people who strongly disagree might see the humor in it, much as I find PJ Ororke funny despite the fact he's a Republican. Good, insightful comedy is good, insightful comedy. "I question all the people I listen to constantly. Many times I disagree or they are flat out wrong. " Excellent. If you can give even one example of that, you'll be full step toward ahead of Naldo towards being reasonable. I'll tell you what, lets play a game. You tell me something Neil Boortz has said you disagree with and you cn name anyone, anyone at all whom you think I'm in "Lock Step" with, and I'll show you where we differ. |
||||
| May 6th, 2003 11:01 AM | |||||
| VinceZeb |
Please explain how Michael Savage is a bigot. Does he scream about wanting to put the mud people into camps and destroy them? I must have missed that. But then again Kevin is good at twisting words and talking out of his ass, which is convinently placed on his neck. Wow, Max, you cited Al Franken's book as a retort to Rush. Man... you must be desperate or stupid. Probably both. And I question all the people I listen to constantly. Many times I disagree or they are flat out wrong. Just because I constantly don't shout out about it doesn't mean that always agree with them. |
||||
| May 6th, 2003 10:23 AM | |||||
| mburbank |
I've started my Horowitz thread, and I promise to start more. Not Rush, though, as there's an excellent book on him, "Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot" that says everything I might say. But thank you, Kevin, as you made my overall points better than I did. I always find Chomsky interesting, but I oftn do not agree with him. Ror, I understand your desire for discussion, but I'm probably the wrong guy. I've read quite a bit, but more of his early lingusitics stuff than his politics, and I've never read it with an eye toward defending him. That said, I don't think I agree with an 'anti-american' label as I've never read anything by him on our constitution. I also think that term is thrown around for all the wrong reasons. Bin Laden? He's anti-american. |
||||
| May 5th, 2003 06:38 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Yeah, Cody (Rorschach for the non-believers), I think you're missing a big point here in this Chomsky matter: MOST OF US DON'T ARDENTLY FOLLOW NOAM CHOMSKY I have found pages equivelent to Bob's homepage that rant on about how David Horowitz's father was a Stalinist, thus Horowitz was, thus discrediting him, etc. etc. Chomsky himself, in quite a smug fashion, refutes Horowitz by claiming that he didn't bother w/ Horowitz when he was writing Stalinist apologetics, so he won't bother with him now (not completely true, but I digress). The reason I, and I'm assuming others like Max, don't want to persue this defense of Chomsky is because we don't really see the point. Is he definitely an anti-semite? I dunno. Is his PhD "in question"??? I dunno, and frankly, I don't care. Show me a professor who MAY have not really earned their degree, and I'll show you maybe 1/4 of the staff at my University. Chomsky, for better or for worse, IS without question anti-American. EVERYTHING relates back to how bad America is, what wrong has been commited by America to create some obscure global crisis in South East Asia, etc. I'm not saying all of his claims are false, I just feel that he inevitably biases his data from the beginning, because he is ardently anti-American, and it blinds him. So, since none of us (or at least most of us) aren't truly Noam cheerleaders, the question then is what is the motivation here? A lot of people on the Left follow him devoutly, yes. But, while we're questioning Chomsky's credentials, why don't we begin checking the political credentials (or lack there of) of Rush Limbaugh? What was Bill O'Reilly's day job before he became popular? Who the hell is Sean Hannity anyway, and why do ratings = intelligence? These men dwarf Chomsky here in America as far as followings go, yet we NEVER seem to question their ratings based credibility. At least with Chomsky you generally have to pick up a book and read it in order to digest it. The gentlemen I just mentioned offer no such debate, they automatically have their very public stump, and what they say is truth by default, because it has been broadcasted. Hence my point: Critique Chomsky, that's fine. But when evaluating his Right-Wing counter-parts, such as the bigoted Mike Savage, who is worse, and WHEN do we start 17 threads trashing them....? |
||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||
