• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Noam Chomsky on Media Control and the Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Errr, what are you doing here sir?

You seem to just be throwing your weight around, like we can even judge this over the internet. You have to this point, done nothing but belittle others who have posted here, and distracted the conversation with empty verbage, and insults. If you were any good at it, I might even have become frustrated, and possibly responded in the same manner, but I have self control, you should try to find yours! I am not a fan of Chomsky, this is more then clear, but you have done nothing to change my mind on the subject. I have given a explanation for my distrust, why don't you try and counter that with some real debate, and leave pettiness at the stoop.:roll:

No, no, no...You see, I made no endeavour to change, you view, even by the smallest amount. Don't like what I'm saying? tough luck, sunshine! It would almost seem that you think your **** is sweeter than mine and that you're somehow eligible to send out your oily little remarks, to me and not expect, as a result, to be on the receiving end of a recoil.... you're very much mistaken and it will continue until you get the message in your tiny little mind.

Now, let's get something right here, chap. We need only look back at the inception of this thread, to see what was nothing more than 'empty verbage' eminating from you two.

What have you done? Well, you've ridicule peoples ideas and the very people they refer to as their source from the get go, with nothing new whatsoever to bring to the table.. as you most certainly did with this one! The issue doesn't become a debate or a conversation, when your plan doesn't rise above anything than deciding, to sit there and type away your obtuse statements. Same applies to nightingale and his own rants.

Don't ever try to talk to me, again, about belittling people and spouting empty talk, like you've got some undivided right, to do so yourself, alright?

And you call this and 'explaination' for your distrust?

This makes absolutely no sense at all, for an educated person anyway. Noam often talks down to everyone, that is his way of growing a larger dick, then the one he now, unfortunately for him, has to live with everyday. The day of this rhetoric is long gone, we have the internet Noam, your crap holds no water, nor weight, give it up!

....hmmm, I think not.
 
Last edited:

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Brigand said:
No, no, no...You see, I made no endeavour to change, you view, even by the smallest amount. Don't like what I'm saying? tough luck, sunshine! It would almost seem that you think your **** is sweeter than mine and that you're somehow eligible to send out your oily little remarks, to me and not expect, as a result, to be on the receiving end of a recoil.... you're very much mistaken and it will continue until you get the message in your tiny little mind.

Now, let's get something right here, chap. We need only look back at the inception of this thread, to see what was nothing more than 'empty verbage' eminating from you two.

What have you done? Well, you've ridicule peoples ideas and the very people they refer to as their source from the get go, with nothing new whatsoever to bring to the table.. as you most certainly did with this one! The issue doesn't become a debate or a conversation, when your plan doesn't rise above anything than deciding, to sit there and type away your obtuse statements. Same applies to nightingale and his own rants.

Don't ever try to talk to me, again, about belittling people and spouting empty talk, like you've got some undivided right, to do so yourself, alright?

And you call this and 'explaination' for your distrust?

This makes absolutely no sense at all, for an educated person anyway. Noam often talks down to everyone, that is his way of growing a larger dick, then the one he now, unfortunately for him, has to live with everyday. The day of this rhetoric is long gone, we have the internet Noam, your crap holds no water, nor weight, give it up!

....hmmm, I think not.


Well I looked back at my earlier posts, and found no personal attacks on you, or your intelligence. I did notice I made an assumption, I thought you had been programed to defend everything Chomsky, now I find you have even taken colorful remarks I made about him, personally, as if I was referring to you?:confused:

I have discussed at nauseum Mr Chomsky, I have obviously grown tired, and you, and folks like you, are the reason I no longer give it much consideration, or intelligent debate. Your fan base seems to defend every word this man speaks or writes, he is not the final word, no matter what you people may think! If you can't see how arrogant most of his writing is, that's your oversight, But I like to think the majority is not some mindless zombie, but indeed, occupied with their own life, and have other important issues that they find more important. These include family, friends, work, and just plain trying to survive in an ever changing world, some just can't take the time to opine as this man has. Even if they could find the time, this man would not be the ideal person to communicate these pontifications, as he rarely tries to include the average amoung us.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Noam Chomsky bears listening to occasionally, as that is about as often as he will say something to make us think. That can be said about almost any professor, politician, preacher, etc. that is at one end of the bell curve or the other. They serve a purpose, but I am not sure we need so many of them serving.
But for anyone thinking that anarchy is a viable form of government, it really isn't a form of government if you consider how long one might exist at any given time. Anarchy, in my readings of history, have existed only as a transition between other forms of governments.:confused:
 

L'Image

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
UtahBill said:
Of course, this presupposes that all the media are in cahoots with each other, that ratings/competition have no influence, that no reporter has a spine exceeding that of a jellyfish, and that the orchestrators are all smart enough to pull it off.

All mainstream media IS in cahoots with each other. 5 large media corporations (TimeWarner/AOL, Disney/ABC, News Corporation Ltd (Fox), Viacom/CBS and a german corporation named Bertlesmann), today control the same assets spread out among 50 (!) different companies only 21 years ago. That is a concentration having increased tenfold. Also, the top 4 US conglomerates (for that is what they are) have 45 interlocking directors and are undertaking more and more joint ventures: they also together control 80% of all cable stations and systems. No matter how you look at it, you still have 5 companies controlling 5 major media outlets (TV, film, radio, books/magazines/newspapers and music industry) with almost total hegemony.

Ratings and competition have influence - but NOT for improving quality of content and usefulness of information for the audience, but for selling as big of an audience as possible to advertisers, which is why we've seen such an increase in cheap-to-produce, attention-grabbing content rather than news and entertainment of higher quality which are harder to digest. Most media are now in the business of making us either horny, scared or happy, because that - while certainly not improving our being well-informed citizens with access to a multitude of opinion - engages us on a more primal level and is effective in keeping us glued to the TV (or any other media). You have to understand advertising is a gargantuan industry that shuffles some $236 billion into the media every year. Commercial news and entertainment too critical of the corporate system cannot survive very long as their main source of funding quickly gets cut off.

Finally, reporters with spine AND opinions dissenting from the mainstream tend to get marginalized. Their opinions are certainly not heard; reporters have little control over what content is approved to be aired or printed - editors and owners do, and these people tend to be MORE, not less, conservative than the public in general as they by and large have personal stake in corporate interest.
 
Last edited:

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
L'Image said:
All mainstream media IS in cahoots with each other. 5 large media corporations (TimeWarner/AOL, Disney/ABC, News Corporation Ltd (Fox), Viacom/CBS and a german corporation named Bertlesmann), today control the same assets spread out among 50 (!) different companies only 21 years ago. That is a concentration having increased tenfold. Also, the top 4 US conglomerates (for that is what they are) have 45 interlocking directors and are undertaking more and more joint ventures: they also together control 80% of all cable stations and systems. No matter how you look at it, you still have 5 companies controlling 5 major media outlets (TV, film, radio, books/magazines/newspapers and music industry) with almost total hegemony.

Ratings and competition have influence - but NOT for improving quality of content and usefulness of information for the audience, but for selling as big of an audience as possible to advertisers, which is why we've seen such an increase in cheap-to-produce, attention-grabbing content rather than news and entertainment of higher quality which are harder to digest. Most media are now in the business of making us either horny, scared or happy, because that - while certainly not improving our being well-informed citizens with access to a multitude of opinion - engages us on a more primal level and is effective in keeping us glued to the TV (or any other media). You have to understand advertising is a gargantuan industry that shuffles some $236 billion into the media industry every year. Commercial news and entertainment too critical of the corporate system cannot survive very long as their main source of funding quickly gets cut off.

Finally, reporters with spine AND opinions dissenting from the mainstream tend to not survive very long. Their opinions are certainly not heard; reporters have little control over what content is approved to be aired or printed - editors and owners do, and these people tend to be MORE, not less, conservative than the public in general as they by and large have personal stake in corporate interest.

This is an excellent post. The media's objective is not to inform, but to increase ratings in order to make more money from advertisers. That's why the American people are not well informed of what their government is doing overseas and that is why thought control has been very effective. The government and the media serve business interests and not necessarily the legitimate needs and concerns of the ordinary common people.
 

L'Image

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
This is an excellent post. The media's objective is not to inform, but to increase ratings in order to make more money from advertisers.

Which is also why media is so geard towards producing news by the middle classes, for the middle classes - advertisers are not interested in less affluent audiences. You often see a 'business section', but rarely a 'labor section'. This bias has the externality (more or less uninteded side effect) of making the less affluent less interested in reading or watching political news, thus effectively excluding a large part of the population from any meaningful public discourse.

TimmyBoy said:
That's why the American people are not well informed of what their government is doing overseas and that is why thought control has been very effective.

And this thought control is critical for any unequal, yet democratic society in which power is dependent on the opinion of the majority; totalitarian dittos do not have to care about dissent to begin with.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
L'Image said:
Which is also why media is so geard towards producing news by the middle classes, for the middle classes - advertisers are not interested in less affluent audiences. You often see a 'business section', but rarely a 'labor section'. This bias has the externality (more or less uninteded side effect) of making the less affluent less interested in reading or watching political news, thus effectively excluding a large part of the population from any meaningful public discourse.



And this thought control is critical for any unequal, yet democratic society in which power is dependent on the opinion of the majority; totalitarian dittos do not have to care about dissent to begin with.


Ohh you aren't telling me anything I don't know. I learned that the hard way when I was sent overseas to Bosnia heh heh. It was like all of America thought we went to Bosnia for one thing and that the war in Bosnia was one thing, including ourselves, but then, when we got their, we started to discover the war that was fought in Bosnia was not at all what the people back home in the states thought it was about and the role the US government played was not a good role, though it was painted in the media as "saving the muslims." It was then that I began to understand how the media does not inform here in the US, but rather controls people. And it was spectacular who well they had the American people fooled about what really happenned in Bosnia.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It was as if when the cameras were turned off and the reporters left the room, politicans would slap each other on the back after playing a cruel joke on the American people and say "EEEhhhhh! Did you see that!?!? How will we ever TOP that one!? ha ha ha ha! We sure fooled them!! ha ha ha!" And in a cruel dark, way, it is kinda funny how we were fooled by the politcans and the media when it came to Bosnia. I am sure it is the same in most American interventions or lack of interventions as was the case in Bosnia.
 

L'Image

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, I myself happen to have fled the war from Bosnia, but know very little about how the war was perceived in western media. Care to elaborate?
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
UtahBill said:
Noam Chomsky bears listening to occasionally, as that is about as often as he will say something to make us think. That can be said about almost any professor, politician, preacher, etc. that is at one end of the bell curve or the other. They serve a purpose, but I am not sure we need so many of them serving.
But for anyone thinking that anarchy is a viable form of government, it really isn't a form of government if you consider how long one might exist at any given time. Anarchy, in my readings of history, have existed only as a transition between other forms of governments.:confused:

Now, we're kind of getting there...I don't regard Chomsky as being 'the be all and end all' of things. No chance! I regard him as an important addition to what is, essentially, a voice in the choir - which is Democracy... as opposed to silence, which is Dictatorship. There are is that much of people that I, myself, draw inspiration from...people like Bill Hicks! Comedic genius! And may he rest in a thousand pieces!

I see the work of Chomsky as impressive and trailblazing stuff. An issue arises when people such as those previous pair of complete twits(Deegan and Nightingale) can't see past their own noses and I'm sure you'll appreciate the irony here, that the mere mention of paying attention to Chomsky's work and vocalizing it, results in being called a 'sheep' and a mindless zombie! and there is no room for discussion, from that. (Of course, that's convientently forgot when it comes down to their - "I said nothing wrong, man!" - chant.)

Now, they've both, Deegan and Nightingale, made it abundantly clear that they haven't studied chomsky's work in any great detail, at all. I dare say even on a dilettante level.

I'm not going to bother retorting on your 'Anarchy as a viable form of government' part..As, I don't think you've read enough of what it is exactly Chomksy has said and there is, potentially, going to be another repeat of things. Therefore, I will suggest, instead, that you read more on it, before passing such comments, or even quote a part of Chomsky's views and talk on what you, essentially, disagree with.
 
Last edited:

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Brigand said:
Now, we're kind of getting there...I don't regard Chomsky as being 'the be all and end all' of things. No chance! I regard him as an important addition to what is, essentially, a voice in the choir - which is Democracy... as opposed to silence, which is Dictatorship. There are is that much of people that I, myself, draw inspiration from...people like Bill Hicks! Comedic genius! And may he rest in a thousand pieces!

I see the work of Chomsky as impressive and trailblazing stuff. An issue arises when people such as those previous pair of complete twits(Deegan and Nightingale) can't see past their own noses and I'm sure you'll appreciate the irony here, that the mere mention of paying attention to Chomsky's work and vocalizing it, results in being called a 'sheep' and a mindless zombie! and there is no room for discussion, from that. (Of course, that's convientently forgot when it comes down to their - "I said nothing wrong, man!" - chant.)

Now, they've both, Deegan and Nightingale, made it abundantly clear that they haven't studied chomsky's work in any great detail, at all. I dare say even on a dilettante level.

I'm not going to bother retorting on your 'Anarchy as a viable form of government' part..As, I don't think you've read enough of what it is exactly Chomksy has said and there is, potentially, going to be another repeat of things. Therefore, I will suggest, instead, that you read more on it, before passing such comments, or even quote a part of Chomsky's views and talk on what you, essentially, disagree with.

LOL, for someone who is so well educated, you really do resemble a child in your constant verbal assaults, and attacks on character. You are basically saying that if you don't agree with Chomsky, you either have just not researched him enough, or you're just a "twit"! Neither of these is true in my case, but I am not even going to waste my time with a spoiled brat such as yourself. Someone should really wash your filthy little mouth out, or at the very least, take you to task in some form. You should refresh yourself with the rules of debate, and the rules of this forum, until then, don't even address me here.:roll:
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
LOL, for someone who is so well educated, you really do resemble a child in your constant verbal assaults, and attacks on character. You are basically saying that if you don't agree with Chomsky, you either have just not researched him enough, or you're just a "twit"! Neither of these is true in my case, but I am not even going to waste my time with a spoiled brat such as yourself. Someone should really wash your filthy little mouth out, or at the very least, take you to task in some form. You should refresh yourself with the rules of debate, and the rules of this forum, until then, don't even address me here.:roll:

I think you need to refresh yourself on the "rules of debate." The first rule is, know exactly what your opponent's views are. If you are going to disagree with somebody's views, you must first understand their views. It seems that you do not know Chomksy's views and therefore cannot really even disagree with him to begin with or even know what you are disagreeing to.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I just happen to have a 2 CD set of NC, entitled Propaganda and control of the Public Mind. Keeps me awake when traveling. He has some interesting things to say, and consider, but he is preaching to a very small choir most of the time. The average person just doesn't have the time or inclination to get involved at NC's intellectual level, so it is just so much academic gas blowing in the wind.
But, he at least has some real intellect going for him. Compare him to a lot of the bombastic blowhards in our radio and TV media, and you can tell immediately that he has more brains than most of the rest combined.
It would be interesting, tho, to see him in a public debate with some of those blowhards....
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
I think you need to refresh yourself on the "rules of debate." The first rule is, know exactly what your opponent's views are. If you are going to disagree with somebody's views, you must first understand their views. It seems that you do not know Chomksy's views and therefore cannot really even disagree with him to begin with or even know what you are disagreeing to.

I know enough of his views to know I disagree, I am not going to write an essay on the mans works, just to prove a point to you people. I know he has a healthy disrespect for most governments, and leans to wards anarchy in his confused views of the world. I also know he is an intellectual, and as such, believes he knows what is best for the world, and is rarely open to others views. This topic was about media control, I don't believe there is any, but I'm not a paranoid, idiot savant either.:roll:
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
I know enough of his views to know I disagree, I am not going to write an essay on the mans works, just to prove a point to you people. I know he has a healthy disrespect for most governments, and leans to wards anarchy in his confused views of the world. I also know he is an intellectual, and as such, believes he knows what is best for the world, and is rarely open to others views. This topic was about media control, I don't believe there is any, but I'm not a paranoid, idiot savant either.:roll:

Reading your posts is pretty entertaining and funny. Anybody who does know anything about Chomsky would find your post very amusing. Based on what I read you don't know anything of his views. You say he has a healthy disrespect for government. You are right about that. As a matter of fact, I do too. Governments have no morality or conscious. They are not moral agents. They are violent institutions and are nothing to be proud of. They never represent the people. However, Chomsky's views are not about "anarchy" in the context you use them. The context you use it is the context of chaos. This is not Chomsky's views. His political convictions are what is called anarcho-syndaclism and some forms of this were practiced in Spain during the Spanish Revolution before being crushed by Stalin's backed communists and Franco's fascists. George Orwell wrote about this movement as well in "Hommage to Catolina" (can't quite remember how to spell it) as well as his experiences while fighting in Spain.
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
Reading your posts is pretty entertaining and funny. Anybody who does know anything about Chomsky would find your post very amusing. Based on what I read you don't know anything of his views. You say he has a healthy disrespect for government. You are right about that. As a matter of fact, I do too. Governments have no morality or conscious. They are not moral agents. They are violent institutions and are nothing to be proud of. They never represent the people. However, Chomsky's views are not about "anarchy" in the context you use them. The context you use it is the context of chaos. This is not Chomsky's views. His political convictions are what is called anarcho-syndaclism and some forms of this were practiced in Spain during the Spanish Revolution before being crushed by Stalin's backed communists and Franco's fascists. George Orwell wrote about this movement as well in "Hommage to Catolina" (can't quite remember how to spell it) as well as his experiences while fighting in Spain.

Gee whiz, now I just feel foolish!:roll:

This man is God, and he has demanded the auidence of thousands, many plot their course to this mans backside! Chomsky does not see the grey in our obvious black and white world. He was a failure in his second career, and should have remained a second rate professor, but he chose to enter an arena, one he had no business commenting on!
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
LOL, for someone who is so well educated, you really do resemble a child in your constant verbal assaults, and attacks on character. You are basically saying that if you don't agree with Chomsky, you either have just not researched him enough, or you're just a "twit"! Neither of these is true in my case, but I am not even going to waste my time with a spoiled brat such as yourself. Someone should really wash your filthy little mouth out, or at the very least, take you to task in some form. You should refresh yourself with the rules of debate, and the rules of this forum, until then, don't even address me here.:roll:

Interesting, and if only for humours sake, that you correspond me to that of a spoiled brat...when your pathetic overutilization of the emoticons and your pitiful use of 'LOL', would seemingly reflect that you, are indeed, more akin to something of an MSN bubble gummer.
You're being called, what is essentially stupid, not because of your disagreements, but because, well...you're stupid!

We agree on one thing. I'm well educated. I don't need to explain why I can't say the feeling is mutual on your behalf. At least, you recognize what educated is. That's a first step in your laggard devolopment, I suppose.

Perhaps, when you tear yourself away from your emoticon/smiley fetish, we can then all celebrate as we witness you make some improved usage of the letters on your keyboard and watch as you clap in glee!

If you need me to explain what 'emoticon' is - it's those 'moving pictures', below and to the right of your reply box, that you grimly enjoy using.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
UtahBill said:
I just happen to have a 2 CD set of NC, entitled Propaganda and control of the Public Mind. Keeps me awake when traveling. He has some interesting things to say, and consider, but he is preaching to a very small choir most of the time. The average person just doesn't have the time or inclination to get involved at NC's intellectual level, so it is just so much academic gas blowing in the wind.
But, he at least has some real intellect going for him. Compare him to a lot of the bombastic blowhards in our radio and TV media, and you can tell immediately that he has more brains than most of the rest combined.
It would be interesting, tho, to see him in a public debate with some of those blowhards....

There is a fair barrel amount of these debates, some typically found at the website of Chomsky's material. Some of the milder debates arise at the end of some of his public talks, when it moves onto a 'question and answer' session.

UtahBill said:
The average person just doesn't have the time or inclination to get involved at NC's intellectual level, so it is just so much academic gas blowing in the wind.

Sure, but this really applies to anything in life and the endeavours that one is willing or not willing to engage in.
If someone does or doesn't have the inclination to do or particpate in any particular thing, and whatever that may be, well that's really a matter of their choice.
It's not really an issue of reaching any intellectual/academic level, either. I suppose, as one example of that, is the abolishment of slavery. I mean, slavery was a commonplace thing for a number of society's, the changes brought about to abrogate it, were made by struggles of mostly poor/average people.
The world is, essentially, better than it's ever previously been, because of peoples interest, on all levels, in making it so.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
His political convictions are what is called anarcho-syndaclism and some forms of this were practiced in Spain during the Spanish Revolution before being crushed by Stalin's backed communists and Franco's fascists. George Orwell wrote about this movement as well in "Hommage to Catolina" (can't quite remember how to spell it) as well as his experiences while fighting in Spain.

Which is why Chomsky is a moron. Anarcho-syndicalism would NEVER work on a large scale. In reality anarcho-syndicalism is just a system that stitches the qualities of many different forms of governments, often conflicting, into one. Direct democracy ie oligarchy would NEVER work..do you have any idea how long it would take to make decisions if they were all made via referendum?! It would be FAR longer than it takes now. Abolishing wage systems and private property is absolutley ridiculous as is abolishing independant oversight of comapanies.The main problem with anarcho-syndicalism is that it assumes that human nature dictates the we always do whats right and in the best interest of not only ourselves but of every other human. It doesn't work that way.
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Brigand said:
Interesting, and if only for humours sake, that you correspond me to that of a spoiled brat...when your pathetic overutilization of the emoticons and your pitiful use of 'LOL', would seemingly reflect that you, are indeed, more akin to something of an MSN bubble gummer.
You're being called, what is essentially stupid, not because of your disagreements, but because, well...you're stupid!

We agree on one thing. I'm well educated. I don't need to explain why I can't say the feeling is mutual on your behalf. At least, you recognize what educated is. That's a first step in your laggard devolopment, I suppose.

Perhaps, when you tear yourself away from your emoticon/smiley fetish, we can then all celebrate as we witness you make some improved usage of the letters on your keyboard and watch as you clap in glee!

If you need me to explain what 'emoticon' is - it's those 'moving pictures', below and to the right of your reply box, that you grimly enjoy using.
Weak child, weak. I see you're still throwing a temper tantrum, I obviously have touched a nerve, good.;)

Now why don't you try actually talking about the topic, and not about my use of emoticons, or level of intelligence. I assure you sir, I am more then capable of wiping the the preverbial floor with you, as you have shown to be nothing more then an angry, spoiled child. So please, once again, debate the issue, or don't even bother addressing me.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Deegan said:
Weak child, weak. I see you're still throwing a temper tantrum, I obviously have touched a nerve, good.;)

Now why don't you try actually talking about the topic, and not about my use of emoticons, or level of intelligence. I assure you sir, I am more then capable of wiping the the proverbial floor with you, as you have shown to be nothing more then an angry, spoiled child. So please, once again, debate the issue, or don't even bother addressing me.
Man, I got attacked, and called racist, for NOT using emoticons! Turns out I have to make sure to use them so my younger, less educated, readers can know when I am being sarcastic.
I would hope that we are all able to listen to dissenting voices with an open mind, and NC is a dissenter. Not all that he has to say is wrong, or biased, some of it is TRUE, and the more truth we know, the better we can form intelligent opinions of our own.
But, in no way should any of us get all of our truth from the same source.
That is self-inflicted blindness, the worst kind. It is bad enough that so much of the truth is kept from us, and some information is manipulated to the point that it becomes confusing, but do we have to aid the enemy in thier efforts to keep us ignorant?:confused:
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
UtahBill said:
Man, I got attacked, and called racist, for NOT using emoticons! Turns out I have to make sure to use them so my younger, less educated, readers can know when I am being sarcastic.
I would hope that we are all able to listen to dissenting voices with an open mind, and NC is a dissenter. Not all that he has to say is wrong, or biased, some of it is TRUE, and the more truth we know, the better we can form intelligent opinions of our own.
But, in no way should any of us get all of our truth from the same source.
That is self-inflicted blindness, the worst kind. It is bad enough that so much of the truth is kept from us, and some information is manipulated to the point that it becomes confusing, but do we have to aid the enemy in thier efforts to keep us ignorant?:confused:

I agree, it just seems the type of individual that most often agrees with NC, is very much like my dear friend Brigand, angry, irrational, and often times arrogant and insulting. I have seen and read many interviews with the man, and it would seem these people are trying their best to imitate the man, only they don't have the intellect, but they seem to have the rest, spot on. I guess, to each his own, but he's certainly not someone I would consider a good person, or a good leader, but an angry, isolated, arrogant individual, and this has always turned me off.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Deegan said:
:confused:

This makes absolutely no sense at all, for an educated person anyway. Noam often talks down to everyone, that is his way of growing a larger dick, then the one he now, unfortunately for him, has to live with everyday. The day of this rhetoric is long gone, we have the internet Noam, your crap holds no water, nor weight, give it up! He is a dying breed, and is struggling to keep his sheep in line, how very sad so many still kneel at the alter.:roll:

Chomsky continues to enjoy tremendous popularity. You're just not going to see him or hear him on corporate media too much.

Despite Chomsky's prominence during the Vietnam War, by the end of the war Chomsky and his supporters claimed that he was becoming increasingly marginalized by the mainstream media in the U.S. Chomsky's supporters, who regard him as a dissident, often criticize this alleged marginalization [22] [23], arguing that he is kept out of the public spotlight because his comments are too unsettling for corporate broadcasters to dare advertise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

As soon as the volume hit bookstores, however, it began selling briskly, and it hasn't stopped. More than 115,000 copies have been shipped to stores, said Kim Wylie, senior vice president of Publishers Group West, which distributes the book and has had a hard time keeping up with the demand. The paperback has also been published in 22 countries and has been a best seller in 5 of them. In the United States, it has made the best-seller lists of The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, The Village Voice and Amazon.com.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0504-05.htm

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall.

He recently "won" an "election" to select the 11 people that would head up a global government. Surprisingly to some, Chomsky came in 4th place, behind the Dalai Lama (3rd), Bill Clinton (2nd), and Nelson Mandela, who was elected "president". Chomsky is considered "one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy" by the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers [5].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
 
H

hipsterdufus

If any of you are interested there are numerous Chomsky lectures and TV appearances with Bill Maher, The Young Turks and I think Jon Stewart available online.
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
If any of you are interested there are numerous Chomsky lectures and TV appearances with Bill Maher, The Young Turks and I think Jon Stewart available online.


No thanks, been there, done that, came out reeking of pot smoke and urine.;)
 
Top Bottom