My first thought was OMG he won a poll. woopy fucking doo.
then I read this......
Chomsky was unimpressed with the honour, telling The Guardian newspaper that polls were something "I don't pay a lot of attention to," adding that "it was probably padded by some friends of mine."
I think even Chompsky would think youre a dropkick Byrnsie.
My first thought was OMG he won a poll. woopy fucking doo.
then I read this......
Chomsky was unimpressed with the honour, telling The Guardian newspaper that polls were something "I don't pay a lot of attention to," adding that "it was probably padded by some friends of mine."
I think even Chompsky would think youre a dropkick Byrnsie.
He's a very modest fella.
And as far as him concerning himself with me, I think he'd at least be pleased that I can spell his name correctly.
Im a fairly modest sort of bloke myself Byrnsie, and I had a little chuckle to myself when I bothered not to correct that p typo knowing very well it would be the one last tiny snippet you would latch onto and use as a comeback of some sort.
Im a fairly modest sort of bloke myself Byrnsie, and I had a little chuckle to myself when I bothered not to correct that p typo knowing very well it would be the one last tiny snippet you would latch onto and use as a comeback of some sort.
If you can get any of his books of interviews, they're a good, and easy read. Otherwise, check out 'Manufacturing consent', or 'Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance'.
You may wanna check out the documentary 'Manufacturing consent'.
are we discussing terror or turror? there is a huge difference!!!
i think of it like this.. war on terror is like 'jeopardy' been around forever..every day...24/7... the war on turror is like 'win ben steins money' ... looks like jeopardy...sounds like jeopardy... but in the end it was really just one big joke.
except that the puppy was just a doggg... and the industry my friend... that was a revoluton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
'Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of behavior and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman and Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth-most cited scholar in any time period.'
Regarding elementary moral principles, he simply states this: 'The most elementary is a virtual truism: decent people apply to themselves the same standards that they apply to others, if not more stringent ones.'
And he goes on to say that in the present world climate, and especially with regard to the 'War on terror'; '...the principle of universality is rejected, for the most part tacitly, though sometimes explicitly. Those are very sweeping statements. I purposely put them in a stark form to invite you to challenge them, and I hope you do. You will find, I think, that although the statements are somewhat overdrawn – purposely -- they nevertheless are uncomfortably close to accurate, and in fact very fully documented. But try for yourselves and see.'
I was just saying I don't think that is an elementary moral principle. I largely agree with Chomsky, but here is proposing something I find difficult to defend against scrutiny.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9718
'Terrorism directed or supported by the most powerful states continues to the present, often in shocking ways. These facts offer one useful suggestion as to how to mitigate the plague spread by “depraved opponents of civilization itself” in “a return to barbarism in the modern age”: Stop participating in terror and supporting it. That would certainly contribute to the proclaimed objections. But that suggestion too is off the agenda, for the usual reasons. When it is occasionally voiced, the reaction is reflexive: a tantrum about how those who make this rather conservative proposal are blaming everything on the US.'
Jlew! Are you listening?
it gets rather boring when noam does all your thinking for you. yawnnnnn
for the record, I'm all for less involvement in foreign affairs. I really like the Ron Paul approach. I'm more interesting in making my country stronger from within then sticking our nose in foreign affairs. the world is a fucked up place, if the world is content with letting dictators run wild, why should I care.
as for the war on terror, that will end when we leave Iraq and Israel-Palestine work something out, which is close. as soon as your friends Hamas are out of the picture.
this whole time i thought it was ByMzie, not ByRNzie.
I like Bymzie more though. i think i'll stick with that.
Reading and comprehension are both highly over rated.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
oh great. i always enjoy a pissing contest. :rolleyes:
all I smell is bad breath...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
How can we seriously be fighting a "War on Terrorism" when our own government is guilty of perpetrating and aiding terrorists.
My objection has always been to the term War on Terror mamma.
I mean a War on Terrorism is equally futile and misguided in my opinion but terror is not something you can fight. People are terrified everyday. Bombing the bejeesus out of Iraq or Afghanistan won't change that, it only increases it.
If you were writing a discussion paper, this line would form your introduction and conclusion...therefore no need to discuss.
War on terror = cold war for current generation
Only this time it is more effective for the administration, the enemy has no locality, it's (supposedly) everywhere, there is no specific country carrying out the terrorism. Administration has even more reason to build arms and carry out multiple wars if necessary to "protect".
If you were writing a discussion paper, this line would form your introduction and conclusion...therefore no need to discuss.
War on terror = cold war for current generation
Only this time it is more effective for the administration, the enemy has no locality, it's (supposedly) everywhere, there is no specific country carrying out the terrorism. Administration has even more reason to build arms and carry out multiple wars if necessary to "protect".
that's a fairly good summary.
it has been talked to death, though, byrnzie, so what more to say?
(sticks toe tentively into the water hoping to not be hit with tsunami )
What "war" has our government taken on in the last 20 years that hasn't been a sham? There's the War on Terror, the War on Poverty, the War on Illiteracy and yes, the oh so successful War on Drugs. Take you pick - one is as much of a lost cause as the other.
(quietly picks up towel, dries toe and slinks back into her beach chair)
(sticks toe tentively into the water hoping to not be hit with tsunami )
What "war" has our government taken on in the last 20 years that hasn't been a sham? There's the War on Terror, the War on Poverty, the War on Illiteracy and yes, the oh so successful War on Drugs. Take you pick - one is as much of a lost cause as the other.
(quietly picks up towel, dries toe and slinks back into her beach chair)
The Falkland Islands thing seemed more or less legit.
The Falkland Islands thing seemed more or less legit.
Are you serious? 99% of Brits had never even heard of the place until the Argentinians invaded it. It's an island 8000 miles away from England. There was very little 'legit' about it, other than Thatcher wanting to be re-elected.
Are you serious? 99% of Brits had never even heard of the place until the Argentinians invaded it. It's an island 8000 miles away from England. There was very little 'legit' about it, other than Thatcher wanting to be re-elected.
as for the war on terror, that will end when we leave Iraq and Israel-Palestine work something out, which is close. as soon as your friends Hamas are out of the picture.
You mean when 75% of Palestinians are out of the picture?
It's hard to take when people with opinions contrary to your own back their statements up with sources.
You, on the other hand, just spout shit.
you may think its shit but at least I think for myself, and am able to form my own opinion based on what I see, hear, and read. I very much enjoyed your cut and paste party though. that noam is quite the critical thinker.
You mean when 75% of Palestinians are out of the picture?
no, when Hamas is out of the picture. they are completely preventing peace. even the international recognized Palestinian authority is ready for peace.
but please continue to move backwards by supporting your terrorist organization. you are part of the problem, not solution.
My objection has always been to the term War on Terror mamma.
I mean a War on Terrorism is equally futile and misguided in my opinion but terror is not something you can fight. People are terrified everyday. Bombing the bejeesus out of Iraq or Afghanistan won't change that, it only increases it.
Well I think the administration worded it that way on purpose. Anything can be defined as terror. So anything or anyone that the administration feels is a terror, ie threat, can easily be swept under the umbrella of the war on terror. That way stupid uneducated Americans can buy into any type of action the goverment wishes to take against this terror.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
then I read this......
Chomsky was unimpressed with the honour, telling The Guardian newspaper that polls were something "I don't pay a lot of attention to," adding that "it was probably padded by some friends of mine."
I think even Chompsky would think youre a dropkick Byrnsie.
He's a very modest fella.
And as far as him concerning himself with me, I think he'd at least be pleased that I can spell his name correctly.
fucken freaky lefty wankers.
Sure. I believe ya!
Thanks!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
its called hipocresy. The US goverment has been guilty of this for a veeeery long time.
Oh don't I know it.
are we discussing terror or turror? there is a huge difference!!!
i think of it like this.. war on terror is like 'jeopardy' been around forever..every day...24/7... the war on turror is like 'win ben steins money' ... looks like jeopardy...sounds like jeopardy... but in the end it was really just one big joke.
except that the puppy was just a doggg... and the industry my friend... that was a revoluton
KNIBB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES!
I was just saying I don't think that is an elementary moral principle. I largely agree with Chomsky, but here is proposing something I find difficult to defend against scrutiny.
it gets rather boring when noam does all your thinking for you. yawnnnnn
for the record, I'm all for less involvement in foreign affairs. I really like the Ron Paul approach. I'm more interesting in making my country stronger from within then sticking our nose in foreign affairs. the world is a fucked up place, if the world is content with letting dictators run wild, why should I care.
as for the war on terror, that will end when we leave Iraq and Israel-Palestine work something out, which is close. as soon as your friends Hamas are out of the picture.
I know its great isn't it. I think sometimes he actually believes that he typed all that himself.
I like Bymzie more though. i think i'll stick with that.
Reading and comprehension are both highly over rated.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
all I smell is bad breath...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
My objection has always been to the term War on Terror mamma.
I mean a War on Terrorism is equally futile and misguided in my opinion but terror is not something you can fight. People are terrified everyday. Bombing the bejeesus out of Iraq or Afghanistan won't change that, it only increases it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
If you were writing a discussion paper, this line would form your introduction and conclusion...therefore no need to discuss.
War on terror = cold war for current generation
Only this time it is more effective for the administration, the enemy has no locality, it's (supposedly) everywhere, there is no specific country carrying out the terrorism. Administration has even more reason to build arms and carry out multiple wars if necessary to "protect".
that's a fairly good summary.
it has been talked to death, though, byrnzie, so what more to say?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's hard to take when people with opinions contrary to your own back their statements up with sources.
You, on the other hand, just spout shit.
What "war" has our government taken on in the last 20 years that hasn't been a sham? There's the War on Terror, the War on Poverty, the War on Illiteracy and yes, the oh so successful War on Drugs. Take you pick - one is as much of a lost cause as the other.
(quietly picks up towel, dries toe and slinks back into her beach chair)
The Falkland Islands thing seemed more or less legit.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
There ya go!!!!
Are you serious? 99% of Brits had never even heard of the place until the Argentinians invaded it. It's an island 8000 miles away from England. There was very little 'legit' about it, other than Thatcher wanting to be re-elected.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You mean when 75% of Palestinians are out of the picture?
you may think its shit but at least I think for myself, and am able to form my own opinion based on what I see, hear, and read. I very much enjoyed your cut and paste party though. that noam is quite the critical thinker.
no, when Hamas is out of the picture. they are completely preventing peace. even the international recognized Palestinian authority is ready for peace.
but please continue to move backwards by supporting your terrorist organization. you are part of the problem, not solution.
Well I think the administration worded it that way on purpose. Anything can be defined as terror. So anything or anyone that the administration feels is a terror, ie threat, can easily be swept under the umbrella of the war on terror. That way stupid uneducated Americans can buy into any type of action the goverment wishes to take against this terror.