Super Happy Liberal Hypocrite Quiz!

sapperskunk

So I was honestly looking for some information on Noam Chomsky because he gets so brought up here in these boards and I passed by this interesting fake/funny quiz. I'm not saying there aren't republican hypocrites, but this is hillarious and somewhat shocking. What do we think? The Chomsky questions are pretty crazy. I know its from a book, but if this guy's accusations were lies than these people would have sued for libelous/slander remarks right?


http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/doasisay/quiz.pdf

ItsEvolutionBaby74

sapperskunk wrote:

So I was honestly looking for some information on Noam Chomsky because he gets so brought up here in these boards and I passed by this interesting fake/funny quiz. I'm not saying there aren't republican hypocrites, but this is hillarious and somewhat shocking. What do we think? The Chomsky questions are pretty crazy. I know its from a book, but if this guy's accusations were lies than these people would have sued for libelous/slander remarks right?


http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/doasisay/quiz.pdf

Not neccesarilym, libs have better things to do with their time...

ThumbingMyWay32

ItsEvolutionBaby74 wrote:

Not neccesarilym, libs have better things to do with their time...

Exactly. Like believing global warming is real.

Scratchin a Letter

sapperskunk wrote:

So I was honestly looking for some information on Noam Chomsky because he gets so brought up here in these boards and I passed by this interesting fake/funny quiz. I'm not saying there aren't republican hypocrites, but this is hillarious and somewhat shocking. What do we think? The Chomsky questions are pretty crazy. I know its from a book, but if this guy's accusations were lies than these people would have sued for libelous/slander remarks right?


http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/doasisay/quiz.pdf

Unfortunately hypocrisy exists. I was actually shocked by the Franken comment 'I was glad when he was killed'. Of course, just because you have left leanings doesn't mean you love homosexuality, you can think what you want. But that's a bit much I think. I didn't know about Moore's private jet either.

And there's plenty of hypocrisy on the other side too. Stuff a lot worse than the above. When has Michael Moore taken an explicit stand on global warming anyway? I thought he was just about slagging off Bush.

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Like believing global warming is real.

Shiiit. Who'der thawt thaait?! I'm sure its just some dang liberals tryin' to wreck the great US economy

Byrnzie

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Exactly. Like believing global warming is real.

Because only 'Liberals' believe that global warming is real, right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm

The Stern Review says that climate change represents the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. And on the basis of this intellectually rigorous and thorough report, it is hard to disagree.

Sir Nicholas Stern, a distinguished development economist and former chief economist at the World Bank, is not a man given to hyperbole.

Yet he says "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century".

Hardly a liberal.

Byrnzie

sapperskunk wrote:

So I was honestly looking for some information on Noam Chomsky because he gets so brought up here in these boards

http://www.chomsky.info/

sapperskunk

Byrnzie wrote:

http://www.chomsky.info/

That sites got a lot of information. No doubt the guys a genius, in terms of liguistics.

But doesn't his vast wealth and work with goverment DOD contractors kind of make him not so politically legit. I also heard he charges a shitload of cash per speaking engagement. I know I'd do the same thing, but you got to walk the walk also to be convincable and taken seriously, right? I can't see him better than any corrupt politican.

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

That sites got a lot of information. No doubt the guys a genius, in terms of liguistics.

But doesn't his vast wealth and work with goverment DOD contractors kind of make him not so politically legit. I also heard he charges a shitload of cash per speaking engagement. I know I'd do the same thing, but you got to walk the walk also to be convincable and taken seriously, right?

I agree, but in the end the message is more important than the messenger.

sapperskunk

Collin wrote:

I agree, but in the end the message is more important than the messenger.

That's exactly the same thing my buddy said to me in person yesterday, when we talked about. Out of a group, we were split. A couple friends and I believed the message is worthless when the guy who created it can't even back it up himself. Then again a friend who thinks like you said it didn't matter as long as it's on paper. None of us were budging and I guess it depends on your personality type.

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

A couple friends and I believed the message is worthless when the guy who created it can't even back it up himself. Then again a friend who thinks like you said it didn't matter as long as it's on paper.

What if you don't know the person who created the idea? What if a million other people can back it up, and have exactly the same idea?

bryanfury

sapperskunk wrote:

That's exactly the same thing my buddy said to me in person yesterday, when we talked about. Out of a group, we were split. A couple friends and I believed the message is worthless when the guy who created it can't even back it up himself. Then again a friend who thinks like you said it didn't matter as long as it's on paper. None of us were budging and I guess it depends on your personality type.

well, try and find a completely pious person nowadays. not gonna happen. we are all hypocrites, except for monks maybe.

so, the message HAS to be more important than the messenger, provided you aren't ted haggert, building your entire life based on a lie.

sapperskunk

So you guys are saying Chomsky, like a lot of people, is a piece of shit, but his political theory is dead on?

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

So you guys are saying Chomsky, like a lot of people, is a piece of shit, but his political theory is dead on?

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying all ideas are worth debating. The message is more important than the messenger.

bryanfury

sapperskunk wrote:

So you guys are saying Chomsky, like a lot of people, is a piece of shit, but his political theory is dead on?

nope.

i'm saying that if he drank a cup of non fair trade coffee while driving an SUV to work, it doesn't mean we should discount his views based solely on that.

sapperskunk

Collin wrote:

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying all ideas are worth debating. The message is more important than the messenger.

But is it worth the time? Lets say I know a vegetarian who once in a blue moon or maybe just thanksgiving indulges in a little turkey. It's so innocent and insignificant it's not a big deal and I would still consider my friend to be a vegetarian. But Chomsky has gone so far in contradicting his views its crazy, I mean seriously he's essentially a member of the bourgouise and worked and gets rich through the pentagon. It's just so extreme, I can't trust him for coming up with good ideas or believing his commentary whatsoever. It's all a lie it seems. I think Chomsky might have ruined Chomsky.

rebornFixer

So many of those remarks have to do with "racism". Its just dumb how some liberals use that term.

sapperskunk

reborncareerist wrote:

So many of those remarks have to do with "racism". Its just dumb how some liberals use that term.

I couldn't believe AL FRANKEN.

shmap

sapperskunk wrote:

I couldn't believe AL FRANKEN.

I couldn't believe it either...I'm guessing this was taken completely out of context. If you follow Al and his writings/speeches/etc., you could absolutely imagine this being tongue-in-cheek. He is a comedian.

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

I agree, but in the end the message is more important than the messenger.

Not when the messenger disproves his own message.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

Not when the messenger disproves his own message.

As I said, I doubt he's the only person with that message. There could be millions of people who actually prove his message and live by those ideas.

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

As I said, I doubt he's the only person with that message. There could be millions of people who actually prove his message and live by those ideas.

You cannot prove a contradiction. When Chomsky's political views are boiled down to their core, you find someone with a strong belief in freedom....but only his preferred brand of freedom. The latter contradicts the former, and it makes him no better than what he so often rails against.