• 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.

Should We Arrest Those who Claim the Holocaust Never Happened?

Should we?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • No!

    Votes: 21 91.3%
  • Maybe. . .(Please explain)

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
Chomsky has said about every other outrageous thing so it wouldn't have surprised me. He is a "respectable" version of Michael Moore. A lot of gullible people fall for his phony bulloney.

Of course you would say that because you don't agree with him. But I'm neither gullible nor stupid and I think the man is brilliant, even if I don't agree with him on everything.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Of course you would say that because you don't agree with him. But I'm neither gullible nor stupid and I think the man is brilliant, even if I don't agree with him on everything.

The problem with Chomsky is not that he isn't a brilliant linguist. The problem with Chomsky is that he is a political nincompoop, world class liar and historical revisionist in the finest traditions of Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao. He's also a self-hating Jew. They're usually the worst.
 
The problem with Chomsky is not that he isn't a brilliant linguist. The problem with Chomsky is that he is a political nincompoop, world class liar and historical revisionist in the finest traditions of Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao. He's also a self-hating Jew. They're usually the worst.

Like I said, this is exactly what someone who doesn't agree with him would say. But you have no substance, no criticism, not really anything to offer except for a bunch of fancy words, mixed in with age-old labels that have been used against him in his long career. If I were to come to a different conclusion about Chomsky, it wouldn't be due to you or anyone like you. The main problem here is that you haven't read any of his material. Most of the conclusions you come up with are based on thins that you've found on other websites. Let's face it, Chomsky isn't exactly something you read for fun. While other find it entertaining in the way that its informative or dissentive, you wouldn't bother with anything such as that. If you had read his work, then your insight would be a lot more interesting. One of the main reasons why I know you haven't read his work is because of you, and everyone else heres, labelling him. What else would you have to offer? If you truley read his work, would you not have used easier to understand, not so angry, cirticism which is normal to someone such as yourself? You are not, as I can see, an unintelligent person but you are forced to take the route of one who is ignorant because you refuse to figure out thins for yourself. If you, or anyone else, really has to offer some actual criticism, not hatred or bashing, but criticism, it can easily be understood and accepted. I wouild heartily debate, perhaps defending him at points and politely attack your points as well. However, as is, there is nothing here that can reach enlightement on either side. And why? Because your ranting is as boring as ****. You have nothing to offer except bullshit. You want to change my mind? Then do it the right way. Offer cirticism, politely yet articulately. With reasoning. Once you can do that I will consider what you say and perhaps use a rebuttal and thus we will debate. Your intellectual ignorance, however, is neither productive nor entertaining. It can only alienate people.
 
Last edited:
vergiss said:
Pray tell, why? Too many long words for you?

No, don't arrest them. But I reserve the right to give them a black eye.


Lets not get personal young lady or I will send you to your room......;)
 
FinnMacCool said:
Should We Arrest Those who Claim the Holocaust Never Happened?
Well? Your answer?

No we should not.Although I have the right to call that person a ****en nazi or a hitler in a head scarf and point out to everyone else that person is a ****en nazi or a hitler in a head scarf.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Like I said, this is exactly what someone who doesn't agree with him would say. But you have no substance, no criticism, not really anything to offer except for a bunch of fancy words, mixed in with age-old labels that have been used against him in his long career. If I were to come to a different conclusion about Chomsky, it wouldn't be due to you or anyone like you. The main problem here is that you haven't read any of his material. Most of the conclusions you come up with are based on thins that you've found on other websites. Let's face it, Chomsky isn't exactly something you read for fun. While other find it entertaining in the way that its informative or dissentive, you wouldn't bother with anything such as that. If you had read his work, then your insight would be a lot more interesting. One of the main reasons why I know you haven't read his work is because of you, and everyone else heres, labelling him. What else would you have to offer? If you truley read his work, would you not have used easier to understand, not so angry, cirticism which is normal to someone such as yourself? You are not, as I can see, an unintelligent person but you are forced to take the route of one who is ignorant because you refuse to figure out thins for yourself. If you, or anyone else, really has to offer some actual criticism, not hatred or bashing, but criticism, it can easily be understood and accepted. I wouild heartily debate, perhaps defending him at points and politely attack your points as well. However, as is, there is nothing here that can reach enlightement on either side. And why? Because your ranting is as boring as ****. You have nothing to offer except bullshit. You want to change my mind? Then do it the right way. Offer cirticism, politely yet articulately. With reasoning. Once you can do that I will consider what you say and perhaps use a rebuttal and thus we will debate. Your intellectual ignorance, however, is neither productive nor entertaining. It can only alienate people.

Evidently you don't understand simple English. Chomsky is a linguist by vocation. No one disputes his expertise in that field. But his expertise in fields outside his vocation do not carry any more weight that the trash man who picks up my garbage; perhaps less since Chomsky has an extreme left-wing agenda to push. Expertise in one area does not transfer over into another area. This is why I think it is absurd to take seriously the pomposity of the Hollyweird crowd. Those self indulgent clowns don't know their tailpipes from a hole in the ground. Chomsky is little better.

BTW, I have actually read some of his nonsense. I would put it this way. In my opinion he is a perfect example of an idiot savant. His political writings are political gibberish. Kindergartners could hardly do worse.
 
Evidently you don't understand simple English. Chomsky is a linguist by vocation. No one disputes his expertise in that field. But his expertise in fields outside his vocation do not carry any more weight that the trash man who picks up my garbage;
Anyone can become an "expert" in global affairs if they really want to be. What makes you think that he is less qualified then say O'Reilly or someone like that?

Besides this, those who read his material don't do so because he is an expert. Anybody who knows anything about writing would know this. Expertise is secondary to style. His style of writing, and his explanations are what has earned him his respect. Orwell was never considered an 'expert' in the field of totalitarian states or global affairs and yet, all throughout the world, he has influenced many peoples politics.

Chomsky is, at heart, a writer. He writes essays, a **** load of books etc. A writer really doesn't require 'expretise' is anything for him to put together a point.


perhaps less since Chomsky has an extreme left-wing agenda to push.
It is an intriquing habit of many people in this forum to attack a person by saying they are 'pushing an agenda' or they are 'playing paristan'. What people fail to realize is that someon who 'pushes an agenda' or 'plays partisan' is doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing and doing exactly what anybody else would be doing in the same situation.

BTW, I have actually read some of his nonsense. I would put it this way. In my opinion he is a perfect example of an idiot savant. His political writings are political gibberish. Kindergartners could hardly do worse.

I have a difficult time believing that. If you had, then you could hardly consider it a Kindergartners effort. Even for those who disagree with him, one would be hard pressed to find someone who would deny his articulation. You have managed to do that though somehow.
 
Navy Pride said:
Why would we arrest them?:confused: They are breaking no law........

They are just being stupid or in denial. If we arrested people for being stupid and in denial, Bush, cheney, would be in jail.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Anyone can become an "expert" in global affairs if they really want to be. What makes you think that he is less qualified then say O'Reilly or someone like that?

Besides this, those who read his material don't do so because he is an expert. Anybody who knows anything about writing would know this. Expertise is secondary to style. His style of writing, and his explanations are what has earned him his respect. Orwell was never considered an 'expert' in the field of totalitarian states or global affairs and yet, all throughout the world, he has influenced many peoples politics.

Chomsky is, at heart, a writer. He writes essays, a **** load of books etc. A writer really doesn't require 'expretise' is anything for him to put together a point.



It is an intriquing habit of many people in this forum to attack a person by saying they are 'pushing an agenda' or they are 'playing paristan'. What people fail to realize is that someon who 'pushes an agenda' or 'plays partisan' is doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing and doing exactly what anybody else would be doing in the same situation.

I have a difficult time believing that. If you had, then you could hardly consider it a Kindergartners effort. Even for those who disagree with him, one would be hard pressed to find someone who would deny his articulation. You have managed to do that though somehow.

I don't give a crap about what Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly says either. The difference with them is that they have an obvious political agenda and express an opinion and that's fine. Same with Al Franken or any other liberal. They all have an agenda but it is more or less up front. With snakes like Chomsky they disguise their agenda as "scholars" with almost a mystical understanding of the "truth."

If Chomsky would simply state that he is an extreme left-wing opinion writer or opiner that would be fine. But I don't want him to pretend he is unbiased or somehow more enlightened than the rest of us mere mortals.

And yes, I have read his bulloney. I am very unimpressed. It is not clearly or logically stated and it relies on selected "facts" to buttress his point of view. He is one of the most dishonest people I have ever read in my life. And the gullible, the young, the stupid lap up his propaganda. And I don't have to sit back and be silent about it. I despise the ground he walks on and I won't shed any tears when he goes to meet his maker and explain all the wrongs he has inflicted on the world with his lies and deceptions.
 
I don't give a crap about what Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly says either. The difference with them is that they have an obvious political agenda and express an opinion and that's fine. Same with Al Franken or any other liberal. They all have an agenda but it is more or less up front. With snakes like Chomsky they disguise their agenda as "scholars" with almost a mystical understanding of the "truth."
Truth is only interperted as one understands it. You act as though Chomsky flaunts his own "truth" around when in reality he doesn't. In fact, I don't think you will ever find a more low key political writer.

If Chomsky would simply state that he is an extreme left-wing opinion writer or opiner that would be fine. But I don't want him to pretend he is unbiased or somehow more enlightened than the rest of us mere mortals.
There you go again with that 'biasedness' and 'agenda' argument. All political writers have an agenda and to deny it would make someone a liar. Tell me when he has denied being biased or having an agenda?

And yes, I have read his bulloney. I am very unimpressed. It is not clearly or logically stated and it relies on selected "facts" to buttress his point of view. He is one of the most dishonest people I have ever read in my life. And the gullible, the young, the stupid lap up his propaganda. And I don't have to sit back and be silent about it. I despise the ground he walks on and I won't shed any tears when he goes to meet his maker and explain all the wrongs he has inflicted on the world with his lies and deceptions.
I find it hightly doubtful that you've read anything of his, to be quite honest. Nevertheless, you seem like a very bitter person. Perhaps your hatred for this man has more to do with the fact that your so unsure of your own personal beliefs and values. Similarly to how many leftists feel towards Ayn Rand. Your thinking seems to reflect my own in terms of her's. I now realize its both a good and bad thing. Maybe you simply have to learn the lesson I learned a little later in life.
 
Last edited:
FinnMacCool said:
Truth is only interperted as one understands it. You act as though Chomsky flaunts his own "truth" around when in reality he doesn't. In fact, I don't think you will ever find a more low key political writer.

There you go again with that 'biasedness' and 'agenda' argument. All political writers have an agenda and to deny it would make someone a liar. Tell me when he has denied being biased or having an agenda?

I find it hightly doubtful that you've read anything of his, to be quite honest. Nevertheless, you seem like a very bitter person. Perhaps your hatred for this man has more to do with the fact that your so unsure of your own personal beliefs and values. Similarly to how many leftists feel towards Ayn Rand. Your thinking seems to reflect my own in terms of her's. I now realize its both a good and bad thing. Maybe you simply have to learn the lesson I learned a little later in life.

Your post makes clear what I have long believed and that is that people will believe what they want to believe. You believe what you wish to believe and I'll do likewise. There is little point in discussing this further. I've read Ayn Rand in my youth and used to believe she was onto something. I no longer believe that. She also had her issues.

If you want something both readable and filled with great truths read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer." It's a short read but anyone can understand it and he hits most of the salient truths that anyone would ever want to know. Chomsky is a fraud. I have read some of his writings and it is crap.
 
Back
Top Bottom