Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Happy Birthday, Noam Chomsky

By

Read full article...

Posted 12/07 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Chomsky is one of the outstanding thinkers of our times.  His championship of the downtrodden people of the earth provides an example worth following. 

    True that on specific issues, priorities, tactics, and strategies, people can disagree with him.  But the value of his writings and public activism is immense.  There is much to learn from his work.

    Posted by Tanweer Akram from  on  12/07  at  08:13 PM

  2. For me chomsky is the best thing to happen in my life.  I have read lots of his books , interviews, talks and I must say he has enlightened me all the time.
    I always wonder at his Phenomenal output , His Amazing memory, his integrity.  He is an inspiration for all of us.
    One thing I will never understand is how so much is possible by one man.  He is a Genius.  And genius is a lucky happenstance.

    Posted by Ajit Hegde from India  on  12/08  at  03:50 AM

  3. In Re No. 2 above:

    Yeah that Chompsky is one helluva guy.  Was it his defense of Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia that you found particularly enlightening?  Or was it something else.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/08  at  11:53 AM

  4. At least it’s clear now that Kilya is a rightwing whacko.  Chomsky didn’t defend Pol Pot in Cambodia.  He rather drew the comparison of how Pot was treated in the mainstream media as an official enemy versus Suharto in Indonesia, gulty of comparable genocide, but an official friend.  It’s truly frightening that someone as humanitarian as Chomsky could be accused of such a thing.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/08  at  12:35 PM

  5. Happy B-Day, Noam.  And thank you for reminding us that genius does not include perfection.  Even geniuses fall victim to the alluring trance of lesser evilism.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  12/08  at  04:31 PM

  6. you can deny the Chomsky/Pol Pot link and try to distinguish it all day long.  Chomsky was an apologist for the Khymer Rouge.  Pure and Simple.

    Need another example?  Chomsky’s writings are implicitly, if not overtly, praiseworthy of Mao Tse Tung.  In 67, Chomsky extolled the virtues of China for having created a positive, just society.  The only problem, China was just coming off of the world’s worst famine in recorded history.  Estimates of those who perished in said famine exceed 25 million. That’s really positive.  I guess it’s just too if you aren’t one of the poor bastards that starved to death…

    That Chomsky… I don’t know if he’s a genius or an uniformed clown.  You tell me. 

    In a way Tracy, Noam reminds me of you.  Waxing on eloquently about something in terms completely opposite of the actual reality.  In literature that’s called irony.  In a debate that’s called ignorance. 

    Happy birthday Noam.  One birthday closer to pushing up the daisies.  I hope in your hell that you are required to dig grave in the killing fields without so much as a morsel to fill your gullet. 

    Can you all tell?  I friggin hate Noam Chomsky. With the passion of 10,000 fiery suns.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/08  at  05:37 PM

  7. While there is no doubt that many Western leftists admired Mao, if only for the fact that things could have been much worse, not as much was known about his policies.  At the risk of devil’s advocacy..., Mao was far less murderous in his building of the prosperous Chinese state than the slave owning founding fathers of America. (note - that is not admiration for Mao, but recognition that all states consolidate themselves in a violent fashion.) Mao certainly - and even Anti-China types have made this clear - far less repressive than Chiang-Kai-Shek.

    Finally, it is quite ironic that the USA is now in hawk to China, which could pull the plug any time.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  12/08  at  07:45 PM

  8. People who accuse Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot, Mao, etc are simply uninformed. In my experience they have rarely actually read any of his work, much less comprehended it, and simply reguritate the assessments of other right wingers who did actually read it, but didn’t understand it. Either on purpose or not.

    It’s the same kind of thinking you always hear. Chomsky will say something like “9/11 was a great tragedy. It was totally unheard of, not in scope, but in the location it happened and who its victim was” and the right freaks out saying he loves terrorists and hates America.

    It’s just simple ignorance.

    Posted by colin from Hartford, CT  on  12/15  at  02:28 PM

  9. Hey Colin, thanks for living up to the liberal standard by calling me uninformed. 

    Instead of telling me why I am wrong about what I have posted with respect to Chomsky on Mao, or Chomsky on Pol Pot, you just call imply that I am stupid. 

    Perhaps you should see how well that tactic worked out in the last election.  In fact it has been rule No. 1 in the democractic playbook for over 50 years. 

    I have given you ample material to work with in my post on Chomsky, Mao and the great famine.  Now explain to me how I am uniformed.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/25  at  12:30 PM

  10. What a howler from Cummings: “...it is quite ironic that the USA is now in hawk to China.” Yes, the USA is hawkish, but I think you meant “in hock.” Or did you?

    -SG

    Posted by Seymour Glass from  on  12/25  at  01:51 PM

  11. hock, as in ham.  I stand corrected

    Posted by J.Cummings from Canada  on  12/25  at  03:05 PM

  12. I’ve just started rereading Chomsky’s newest book Hegemony or Survival, which is pure genius from its opening lines.  I don’t think he needs to be defended; his work stands for itself, and anybody with an open mind and respect for decency, justice and democracy can read it for its erudition.  But I would just like to cite Chomsky briefly here as example of the humanity and mind we are talking about: “The point of public relations slogans like ‘Support our troops’ is that they don’t mean anything… That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That’s the one you’re not allowed to talk about.”

    Everytime I see those superficial and jingoistic bumper stickers on SUVs exhorting us to “support the troops,” I get nauseous.  Chomsky is like penicillin for a strep throat. 

    I don’t know what the last election proved.  That Corporate Candidate A beat Corporate Candidate B?

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/25  at  11:02 PM

  13. I don’t see how Ms. McClellan’s quote of Chomsky can be viewed as an example of humanity.  More like stupidity.

    If you don’t understand what the phrase ‘support our troops’ means, then perhaps it is understandable how you could view such tripe as humanity.

    I served in first Gulf War as an Army Ranger and was shot in the leg and shoulder by enemy fire.  Fortunately my injuries were not too severe and I fully recovered.  I chose to stay in the military and served in Somalia for that debacle where I was again injured in my left eye.  Despite losing most of my vision in that eye, I can tell you this, I helped and befriended more Iraqi’s and Somalis than I ever had to engage in combat.  Unless I am a complete rube, I believe many, if not all of them, appreciated why the United States military and I were there.  I am therefore proud to have served.

    I have a sister and a cousin, both in the army, who are currently serving in Iraq.  I have another cousin who is in Afganistan.  So for them, and their brothers and sisters in arms, I will tell you what I believe the slogan ‘support our troops’ means.

    It means donating a little bit of time and money to the families of those who are over seas in the armed services.  I have done both.  It was the least I could do considering the financial and emotional support my family received when I was serving in Iraq and Somalia.  It means thanking the service men and women that you might see in an airport this holiday season.  Thank them for risking their lives. It means not ignoring the good work that our troops are performing by focusing and magnifying the inevitable negativity that is associated with every war.

    To someone who has served, there is nothing jingoistic about seeing a bumper sticker exhorting us to support our troops.  It should never make one nauseous.  Instead it should make one realize how fortunate one is to live in a country where others are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of those who live in a democracy and those who live under tyranny.

    Posted by Preston Devers from Fort Bragg  on  12/28  at  08:42 PM

  14. No one here denies that soldiers make sacrifices.  What we argue is that these soldiers are making sacrifices for a bad cause.  So I don’t like the slogan “support the troops,” unless it is accompanied with “by bringing them home, raising their pay, not cutting off their benefits and in general not using them as cannon fodder for Imperial wars.”

    I have nothing but respect for soldiers if they can separate themselves from their actions and realize for whom they are comitting what many would consider criminal acts.  As well, I don’t doubt that many if not most American soldiers are idealists and good folks like yourself.  The problem is that idealism gets used by Imperialists, who would never send their own kids to war- in order to enforce a very immoral imperium.  The best way to support the troops is to encourage them to revolt.

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  12/28  at  09:37 PM

  15. It’s Mr.  And it’s one “c” not two.

    “It means not ignoring the good work that our troops are performing by focusing and magnifying the inevitable negativity that is associated with every war.” Can’t understand the “negativity” in the light of over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians murdered in this war.  Or to take one more egregious example exemplary of a long history beginning with the genocide of the original Americans, three million murdered Indochinese in the Vietnam War, millions more seriously wounded, the complete destruction of three countries, in which the inhabitants today are still suffering the casualties of unexploded ordnance and the chemical warfare of Agent Orange.

    The only way to support the troops is to bring them home.  As for the alleged freedom we enjoy in this country, the very idea too makes me nauseous.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/29  at  11:58 AM

  16. Tracy,

    You point out that :

    “over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians murdered in this war. “

    You fail to mention that over 1 million Iraqis were murdered by Saddam as you and the Left and Chomsky said nothing. I suppose the value of those people were not as great as the lives of those who engaged in the murder, rape and torture of their own people (a large percentage of the 100,000 people killed). Surely, those thousands of Iraqis killed by the insurgents are of little concern to you and the Left (though they are included in a number that you associate with the actions of the US). Let’s be honest. You care nothing for the lives of Iraqis, Americans or liberal values for that matter. That is why you would prefer that 80% of Iraqis (60% Shiites and 20% Kurds) would be oppressed by less that 20% of the Sunnis—where rape was used as a political tool and tens of thousands of kids under 15 were political prisoners. You would prefer this not because you want the soldiers to be safe at home or even the US to be safe or for any other benevolent rationale. You want this because is is an imperative of your political identity. Your identity requires American failure and the failure of the individual to know freedom and accountability. You can bring up the Indians, Vietnam, slavery or any other historical event to justify the nausea of your political identity...but it won’t change certain facts. Namely, the Left has no moral authority, no intellectual integrity and is irrelevant. Indeed, the Left has become a mere sideshow in the great circus of life—a curiousity at best and ,at worst, a deformed caricature of its own self-loathing.

    Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA  on  12/29  at  03:32 PM

  17. I don’t know what the exact number is, surely it was tens of thousands that Saddam killed, but what you fail to mention is that he did these things in the complete knowledge of the US, and with its help.  The US has no problems with tyrants, thugs and murderers, as long as they adhere to the US line.  It was only with Saddam disobeying with his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that the US had a problem with him.  Right up until then it was military and financial support.  There’s a long history of this.  Noriega in Panama.  Others didn’t disobey.  The Shah in Iran, Suharto in Inodnesia, Pinochet in Chile, just to mention the short list.  You say I have no moral or intellectual integrity.  I think it is precisely because I do that I am so distressed at the crimes of this government.  You conveniently neglected to mention at all Vietnam.  Except to dismiss it.  I know, even good intentions sometimes go awry.  The US murders 3 million in Vietnam alone, and it’s oops sorry end of story.  The September 11 terrorists murder 3,000 and its WWIII.  And a war on a country that had nothing to do with it, under the pretense, still believed by something like 40% of Americans, that it did, thanks to our so-called media.  But I am the one who lacks moral and intellectual integrity.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/29  at  06:35 PM

  18. My wish is that you and those who dwell within the abyss of a political identity—would stop confusing a laundry list of tragedy (taken outside of any context) with insight and logic. You can be certain that I have your list memorized—and could help you by adding our support of Saudi Arabia, Russia, Marcos, Stalin during WW2, Napoleon and a hundred other moral lapses. A laundry list doesn’t exempt you from moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty that comes from saying nothing as hundreds of thousands are murdered, raped, tortured and denied anything resembling individual liberty-- while projecting the swollen fakeness of being a humanist and pretending to have a real desire to add value to a thousand abstractions...but not to one real person. Moral integrity means that you stand up for gay rights and women’s rights and human rights even when doing so would harm your political identity-- if these things are valued by you. Why isn’t the left fighting for those women and gays and minorities and others who have a progressive world view in Saudi Arabia, Syria, China, Cuba, and elsewhere that are being oppressed? A laundry list isn’t an arguement, nor does it absolve the Left of accountability towards what it claims to stand for. But the left has no time or interest to help save lives by speaking out against totalitarian regimes that oppress millions and cultivate hate. The reason is that you share the hate espoused by the state-run media of the Mideast toward the US (since you parrot their absurd rhetoric) and this commonalty is why you are silent. No moral indignation when former members of Saddam’s regime kill women, children and anyone else who does not conform to their world view. No moral indignation that Saddam and every other regimes in the region would prefer to teach their children the benefits of hating the US, Israel and the West, rather than things that will improve their life. Instead, you advocate a status quo that threatens the lives of the children in the US and the Mideast. Demonizing the US and rambling off your list will not save one person or create a better future for anyone. It simply props up a static identity and provides you a method to negate your responsibility to add something, anything of value to your fellow man.

    Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA  on  12/29  at  08:00 PM

  19. Yoonts:  Why isnt the left fighting for those women and gays and minorities and others who have a progressive world view in Saudi Arabia, Syria, China, Cuba, and elsewhere that are being oppressed?

    Please cite an example of all ofthis. In the case of Saudi Arabia - we’ve been on them for years. To truly critique America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia one has to acknowledge the symbiosis, and the cause, being capitalism and America - more than even most other capitalist countries’ insatiable consumption of energy. The left has long been critical of America propping up Saudi Arabia, and by far the best studies of their policy are by leftists such as As’ad Abu Khalil. 

    In the case of Syria, there are left wing parties there that radicals intrinsically solidarize with - and every Canadian progressive would find it hypocritical for someone arguing in favor of American policy to critique Syria, where whom a Canadian citizen Meher Arrar was deported by the American government in order to be tortured on behalf of Americans.  Syria is certainly a police state and I defy you to find any radical who supports it, as opposed to not wanting it to be bombed, and encouraging the nascent “Damascus Spring”

    In the case of Cuba, I’m not gonna say its perfect nor recite the litany of Cuba’s achievements compared to nearly all of the neoliberal colonies in the Caribean, because that’s well known.  Of course it could be more free, but so could America.  be better, the prospect is laughable to the extreme, at least while the current American world order is in power.  America’s hatred of Cuba knows no bounds...it recently tried to complain about the imprisonment of 75 “dissidents” (as in people who are interested in capitalist American style rule in Cuba,) no doubt distasteful but coming from a country that comitts atrocities far greater is chutzpah.  Cuba responded, as is known with a very ironic billboard of photos of Abu Ghraib torture, across from the US embassy.  A thousand words, so to speak.

    China has long been criticized on the left, along with the states, for being the dual facilitators of today’s global capitalist order.  To truly undertand China’s near-hegemonic role - which may undercut American influence in a positive (as in undercutting a unipolar world) way but certainly won’t improve life in China - is as a result largely of American capitalists and capitalism.  This much is acknowledged in the business press on a regular basis.  While there are plenty of leftists who would like to see a multipolar world, I defy you to name a single leftist who supports the current government policy of authoritarian capitalist China.

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  12/29  at  08:24 PM

  20. Can someone tell me if Tracy McLellan simply cuts and pastes everything he/she posts? 

    Tracy, you continue to avoid responding to the evisceration of your ill informed arguments.  Case in point:  Preston Denvers, in his post above, challenged your characterization of the Chomski quote as humanistic.  You do nothing to clarify your position.  I suspect that is because you can’t defend it.  There is nothing humanistic about attacking support for our troops.  It’s just more of the same out of you, “I hate/blame America… I am so provacative that I will ratify and adopt any thought of Chomski without exercising any critical thinking.” Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but perhaps you would be less nauseous if you chewed on some logic for a while.

    Bravo to Cannon Yonts for highlighting another of Mr. McLellan’s failed advocacy tactics - laundry lists.  For those of you new to this thread, it is the same laundry list McLellan repeats in every thread, no matter the topic.  See e.g. Tracy’s comments to Mickey Z’s article on Pat Tillman, Ricky Williams and the so-called hypocrisy of our great nation.  Hint Hint McLellan - that’s why I accuse you of cut and paste.  It’s either that or you only have one argument to make regardless of the subject.  (In hell we call that a one trick pony)

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell, right smack dab in the middle.  on  12/29  at  10:59 PM

  21. In Re j cummings post above:

    j cummings, did you dislike the slogan “support our troops” before you learned of Chomski’s position?  Or are you merely parroting sentiments of a socialist academic whose 15 minutes ran out 30+ years ago?

    NOTE:  the sentiments referenced above will immediately be considered seditious when I become dictator of the red states after the blue state secede… at which time I will promptly suspend the writ of habeaus corpus and wage a bloody campaign of civil war until this great country is once again united… this time under the ironclad and irreversible control the the vast right wing conspiracy…

    Incidentally, the depiction of Jefferson on Mount Rushmore will then be refashioned in the likeness of me, El Presidente Al Kilya.  Also, all polution controls will be rolled back in perpetuity. An 11 hour work day will be imposed on all.  However, only the poor will be required to pay taxes.

    Posted by Al Kilya from Surfing in Sri Lanka  on  12/29  at  11:19 PM

  22. j cummings,

    The fundamental difference between the Left and those who possess an appreciation for freedom is how each side approaches the concept of the individual. The Left does not and cannot believe in the soveriegnty of the individual—since they have chosen to replace the an individual’s real, concrete existence with a collective abstraction. Human rights to the Left mean only rights for those who adhere to the ideology of the collective abstraction as you illustrate so well when you said:

    “America’s hatred of Cuba knows no bounds...it recently tried to complain about the imprisonment of 75 “dissidents” (as in people who are interested in capitalist American style rule in Cuba,) “

    The Left does not value the ability of the individual to choose, unless the choice reinforces their own identity. The idea that an individual would make choices that benefit himself/herself, his family and his community is repulsive to the Left—as it is to the far Right. The Left feels its ideology is better able to make choices for people than individuals can themselves. This is why the Left is repulsive to American values—yet is still tolerated so long as it doesn’t impose itself on the individual. America is strong enough to allow for Leftist and Right-wingers to say absurd, hateful and ignorant things. Cuba is not. Totalitarian Arab states are not. Your group of intellectual friends, it is my guess, aren’t strong enough to endure non-conformance.

    My point was that the Left doesn’t care about the individuals that have perished in Iraq or elsewhere—or that are denied human rights. The Left cares about its identity—which can best be described as political and intellectual self-loathing. In fact, the Left would like to see more people die in Iraq, a return to oppression and the extermination of all hope for the individual in the region. Why? Because any form of success will make the Left more irrelevant than it is today (which is saying alot). When the individual is negated and replaced by an abstraction, it is difficult to project any kind of humanistic sentiment that is not shallow and meaniningless.

    Blaming all the world’s problems on capitalism and assigning the US the stature of “the Great Satan” since it is the most powerful capitalist country isn’t a unique rhetorical strategy. Replace capitalism with “sinfulness” and you can get a job in the Arab state-run media. Replace “capitalism” with “religious fundamnetalism” and you can get published in any French tabloid. Assuming your ideals extend beyond a rhetorical demonization of the US, however, I would be interested (as an MBA and someone fond of economic theory) to hear your plan. So long as you don’t negate the individuals right of choice, risk taking, entreprenuerialism and accountability—I might even become a groupie of your ideological cult. Who knows, maybe wrapping myself in the shadow of an identity might prove more satisfying than striving to add value.

    Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA  on  12/30  at  09:14 AM

  23. I haven’t endured so much philosophical claptrap since I last read Ayn Rand.  But back then, I was still hypnotized by Rand.  Now it’s just nauseating.  It is precisely because the left cares about the individual, about families and about freedom, I at any rate, that it holds the humanitarian politics it does.  And we adhere to the collective, not to negate the individual, but because more can be accomplished collectively than by individuals acting alone.  That, at its deepest, is what self-govenment, democracy means; as contrasted with reactionaries that really mean by less government, no government at all - except for the plutocracy.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/30  at  06:56 PM

  24. “I haven’t endured so much philosophical claptrap since I last read Ayn Rand. But back then, I was still hypnotized by Rand.”

    You should have followed Rand up with some Nietzsche to understand where Rand developed her concept of individualism-- and contrast that with Kierkegaard to find a subjective view of the individual. Instead, you probably plopped right into political philosophy that abstracts the individual into a collective entity. Interesting reading. It has a wrecklessness to it, a sense of pushing towards the edge to build something sacred. Of course, by ignoring that there is such a thing as human nature, one can envision a very tidy social system devoid of competitive instincts, slow ethical evolution, intense subjectivity and just freakshows (good or bad) that disrupt any system.

    “ It is precisely because the left cares about the individual, about families and about freedom, I at any rate, that it holds the humanitarian politics it does.  “

    Which policies are those and in which circumcstances and at what point do you value humanitarian policies above your political identity?

    “And we adhere to the collective”

    Which collective? Is it the collective that agrees with you or the collective that helps you score political points or the collective that validates abstracted individualism?

    “, not to negate the individual, but because more can be accomplished collectively than by individuals acting alone. “

    Exactly. More can be accomplished. But what do we decide to accomplish? Who decides what we accomplish? Who decides what is or is not an accomplishment? Does the individual chose or not chose? Can the individual choose regarding his economic life? Will the collective decide what individuals want?

    “ That, at its deepest, is what self-govenment, democracy means; as contrasted with eactionaries that really mean by less government, no government at all”

    Self-government is about having a part in decisions that affect you as an individual. Your family, community, etc. Inpired Virginia boys (Jefferson, Washington and Madison) understood that the rights of the individual are more essential to freedom than the rights of an abstraction. They also realized that any kind of government is messy, ugly and frustrating business… a necessity that must be controlled by the individual.

    “except for the plutocracy”

    Yes, the corporations and investment bankers and zionist and religious fundamentalists and gun owners and nascar fans, etc. How many folks are in a plutocracy? Is there an established number of Plutocrats? What makes a Plutocrat inherently evil and why should Plutocrats be shunned from the collective? What if Plutocrats are just some folks that need a hug and someone to listen? Who are we to judge Plutocrats? Plutocrats are only making their way, the only way they know how…

    Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA  on  12/30  at  10:39 PM

  25. You know what Cannon, I’ve read almost everything Nietzsche’s written, and spent probably ten years studying it.  Even now I think there is much to recommend it.  The Antichrist is one of my all time favorite books.  But I too have many problems with it, and besides have moved on to more contemporary genius, such as Chomsky.  But to borrow one of Nietzsche’s formulations, I’m not going to spin philsophical cobwebs with you.  I will go on record as saying my last post was a cheap shot; that I ought to have respected where you were coming from, and sought more to see common ground as compatriots, or fellow citizens of the world, as the case may be.  I am humanist in the sense that I am appalled and outraged at the fact that my government is hands down the biggest terrorist organization on the planet; notwithstanding our Orwellian media.  And I am just as outraged and appalled that I don’t have the merest scintilla of imput into what you imply is a democracy in America—the terrorist, God shed a fist of fire on thee.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/31  at  10:23 PM

  26. I’ve seen this exact conversation on this web page several times before.

    Whenever I hear Tracy McLellan speak, I recall his statements on this web site last year that he doesn’t care about Sudan because it’s not his problem.  It’s America’s mess to deal with, he said.

    He’s a good representative of the radical Left.  They only feel moral indignation when it’s Israel or America that’s doing something.

    He isn’t Jesus, is he?

    Posted by An observer from Here  on  12/11  at  11:29 AM

  27. So I did a quick survey of the contributions of Mr. Cummings and Mr. McLellan, looking for ANYTHING criticizing pre-invasion Iraq, Sudan, Syria, China, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Congo or any other major repressive, murderous or genocidal regime.  NOTHING.  They have nothing to say.  In fact, Mr. Cummings often calls critics of these countries racists. 

    Mr. McLellan’s articles all bashed the U.S., with a little bit of pro-narcotics and pro-Communism material thrown in.

    Mr. Cummings mostly divides his time between hating America, Israel and Jews.  He seems to have a strong dislike for his fellow Jews. 

    So again, it doesn’t look like the radical left has much to show for its vaunted moral clarity.  And when people don’t agree with them, they always respond by saying we need to get educated.

    Posted by An observer from Here  on  12/11  at  03:49 PM

  28. Noam sure can make you think.  Everybody loves him when he criticizes US policy, but the Canadians got a little huffy with him when he was being interviewed on Canadian radio.  He had the unmitigated gall to criticize Canadian gov. policy; in Canada! 

    He was biting the hand that feeds him; some you lose, some you win.

    The guy with ‘no known credentials’ is as smart as J. Robert Oppenheimer was.  J. Robert Oppenheimer knew when to be smart enough to be dumb enough.

    Love him or hate him, Noam makes you think.  He can be wrong too.  I have no knowledge of anybody ever being right all of the time.

    Everybody makes mistakes, and Noam is no exception.

    I’ll take Professor Chomsky’s doctrine, and pass on Al Kilya’s doctrinaire.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/16  at  08:34 PM

  29. I never said anything like this, as is reputed to me above: “Whenever I hear Tracy McLellan speak, I recall his statements on this web site last year that he doesn’t care about Sudan because it’s not his problem.  It’s America’s mess to deal with, he said.”

    What there are of my articles don’t bash for the sake of bashing the United States; they only make observations of the truth of the United States: that its government is the biggest terrorist organization on earth.  My country always, said Mark Twain, my government only when it is right.  I am aware of some of the tyrannies of other governments - no thanks to our corporate controlled media incidentally - but once again they relatively pale next to the US.  Indeed, the US has perenially supported dictatorial regimes: Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile, the Shah in Iran, the murder of President Arbenz in Guatemal in 1953, the short of a very long list, not to speak of the atrocity carried out in Vietnam, to the immeseration of billions of desperately poor people. 

    The US government isn’t exactly alacritous in its presuring the Saudi regime to reform.  Anything goes with those in it who covet Saudi oil and wealth.  Ditto any other issue of principle.

    I can’t remember if I wrote anything as such criticizing pre-invasion Iraq.  As I said, I’m not much of an accomplished writer.  But I was as active as I could, and did everything within my power to stop it, including demonstrations, lobbying and writing my senators, and talking with as many people as possible about it.

    Inspectors were on the ground shortly before the invasion began looking for the alleged WMD.  Hans Blix’s most recent commentary there before the weapons inspectors’ withdrawal and the murderous bombing began was that his team couldn’t find WMD, and needed more time to complete their mission.  Why weren’t they given this time?  Because the Bush administration had already previously decided, as Bush said in 2002, don’t worry about him, “#### Saddam, we’re taking him out.” Or as Rumsfeld said on 12 September 2001, to the effect of “tie Iraq to these attacks, sweep it all together, everything related and not.”

    Now let me indict you right-wing whackjobs.  I suppose you support Bush’s undermining of the Constitution reported this week that he authorized the NSA to spy on American citizens.  Added to Orwell’s apothegms of Big Brother appears to be a fourth:

    War is Peace

    Freedom is Slavery

    Ignorance is Strength

    Violating Civil Liberties Protects Them

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/17  at  03:57 PM

  30. With all due respect Cannon, your rants sound like the product of the Ayn Rand Institute.  You build these philosophical cobwebs and lofty abstractions that ignore the practical realities of billions of terribly suffering people.  Then you accuse me, about whom you know next to nothing - for example I’m a “leftist,” whatever that is - of engaging in a faux-humanism, attributing it to my self-loathing identity collectivist politics -straight out of the Ayn Rand cheapshot playbook.  You never identify your motives, but I know what they are: they’re your self-interest, which in our plutocratic society means insatiable greed and consumption, while half the world’s population, 3 BILLION people, scrape by on US $2 a day.  Where is the justice in a world where this fact sits side-by-side with the fact that around 1999 Rush Limbaugh, the consummate liar, signed a contract with Clear Channel Communications for $256 million over six years, or a tidy $800,000 a week?  This doesn’t include of course his “entrepreneurial” pursuits, stock investments and the like, his disgusting member fees at his website, nor his almost-undoubted heavy investment in the armament industries.  The collective, i.e., the government, in a democracy at any rate, ought to step in and strictly regulate such disgusting circumstances -and there are many such circumstances.

    As to your questions about plutocracy and plutocrats and their shunning by “collectivists,” (whatever they are), it is not for me the “sovereign individual,” to say how the “collective,” i.e., the government, should treat them.  That’s for the collective, that is to say, the legislative process, to effect.  In a world however, a “democracy” run amok, sold to the sole benefit of the “individual” and corporate interests, more precisely to the wealthiest one percent, such democratic instruments for are not in place.  As Jordy essentially says in this thread, the root cause of most of the world’s problems is capitalism.  That sacred cow of Ayn Rand. (continues)

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/18  at  10:28 AM

  31. With regard to T. McLellan’s 10:28 am post on 12/18:

    When discussing Rush Limbaugh and his lucrative contract, you state, “[t]he collective, i.e., the government, in a democracy at any rate, ought to step in and strictly regulate such disgusting circumstances...”

    Am I mistaken or are you saying the government should step in a regulate Limbaugh’s right to free speech?  Ms. McLellan, you should read the first amendment.

    Furthermore, the reason Mr. Limbaugh is able to command a salary paid under a 256 million dollar contract is because people listen to him.  He has a massive audience.  As such, radio stations are able to sell advertising when his show is on the air.  Such marketing may likely increase sales.  It’s called a free market.  You should study it.  It’s one of the principles this country was founded upon.

    Ms. McLellan, I know you would like the U.S.A. to be some communist uptopia where the government cures all ills, equality means nobody can have anything unless everyone can have the same, drugs use is free and encouraged, and abortions are doled out on demand.  But it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.  And I would venture to guess that such a uptopia would bring more suffering to bear on the masses than your “humanistic” mores could bear.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/18  at  10:43 AM

  32. (continued)
    As to plutocrats, my suggestion for dealing with them is to treat them as follows, because their wealth and consumptive lifestyle engender so much suffering in the world.  Bertrand Russell said something interesting in his book Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays.  His first reason incidentally is to say that all religions claim that they are the only true path to God, that one or all of them must thusly be wrong and he chooses to believe Christianity so.  He said while the concept in a democracy of innocent until proven guilty is a noble one and I support it, when it comes to saints, I think it should be just the other way around: guilty until proven innocent.  I think we should take a like approach to plutocrats because of the immense suffering they cause; take Dick Cheney just to pull a name, and its offal, out of the air.  Guilty until proven innocent.  With Cheney of course we need not bother with such niceties, for to anybody who has been paying attention his crimes are legendary, making Teapot Dome look like the circus.  In this way the decent wealthy people wouldn’t be ensnared in MY philosophical and political cobweb spinning.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/18  at  10:53 AM

  33. Al Brutal Kilya,

    Just curious, are your Arabic?

    I’ve told you once before, it’s Mr. McLellan.  No, I am not saying the government should regulate speech.  Limbaugh can spew his hatred and lies all he wants as far as I’m concerned.  I don’t know what to say about the alleged humanity of a, I don’t want to say man, who applauds and lauds the kidnapping of four members of Christian Peacemaker Teams.  To realize such a scoudrel commands 800k a week, like winning the lottery every week unlike the poor slobs who actually pay the poor peoples’ lottery tax, is incomprehensible.  One must contextualize listening to the Big Fat Idiot within and around the company he keeps, with the $300 cigars he smokes (while 20,000 children die of hunger daily worldwide), and his fatuous dialectics.  I AM saying in a socialist society that I believe, that I know, is the only hope for our world and our future, most of his filthy lucre ought to be redistributed to the destitute.  As for your comment about the free market being one of the principles upon which this country was founded, it’s too absurd to even comment upon.

    Al Brutal Kilya, you wouldn’t happen to be one of those spies working for the National Security Agency would you?  Just asking?  I do have free speech too, no?  In any event, brute, let me tell you I am as little intimidating by your bullying as the Palestinians are that they endure at the hands of the Zionist Israelis.

    Brute.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/18  at  11:09 AM

  34. so MR. McLellan, am I to infer from your comments that in addition to being a flaming socialist, you are also an anti semite?  Pro Palestine eh?  I am all for them having their own state myself, but not to the exclusion of an Israeli state.  And how one can take the side of a people who gladly send brainwashed suicide bombers to murder innocents in markets, pizzerias and discos?  It’s absolutely beyond me. 

    Just for the record, I support you right to exercise free speech… No matter how ingnorant, racist or offensive as it is.  It helps further the conservative agenda which I would argue is much more humanistic than your anti-Israel, socialist position.

    I invite you to attempt to refute my comment that this country was founded upon capitalistic principles?  I don’t think you can.  Please include in your response any theory you might advocate that this country was actually socialist in its origins.

    This country has been a free market pretty much from the get go.  Only in this county could my great grandfather come over on a boat from Italy all by himself at age 13 and settle in Pennsylvania, work hard and open his own successful business which continues to operate to this day. (With a fairly significant profit margin I might add) He had to bust his ass to make it, but he didn’t sit around crying for the government to come bail him out in tough times.  And why should he have been forced to share the profits of his hard work with the deadbeats who sit around waiting for the government dole?

    Please advise.

    Al “Shirley” Kilya

    P.S. I am a brute.  I am also an NSA spy. 
    P.P.S.  Since you started the childish name calling, I will finish it. Have a nice day you anti Semite.

    Posted by Al Kilya from  on  12/18  at  12:40 PM

  35. On the government dole?  You mean like Ahmed Chalabi, who was being paid $330,000 a month in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, to provide intelligence that turned out to be erroneous, - remember the WMD? - nefarious and self-serving.  Maybe you mean Bush II signing legislation in 2001 that provided $34 billion of subsidies over ten years to the already filthy rich (and dirty) fossil fuel industry, i.e. Exxon/Mobil, Texaco, Shell, et al.?  Maybe you mean a Pentagon budget that exceeds the rest of the world’s combined, the Lockheeds, the Boeings and Bechtels, that kind of dole?  Not merely in the range of a paltry $1,500 a month, but rather in the billions?

    It’s like Chomsky often notes.  What is meant by capitalism and free-enterprise is the socialization of risks and investment and the privatization of profits for the wealthy, and free trade for everyone else.

    As to your challenge to debate the relationship of capitalism and free-enterprise to the founding of this country, any gains worth making aren’t worth the effort with you.  There is a method in your prose, a certain slinging around of indictments and accusations without having the slightest epistemological proof that is dishonest, and would refuse to be brought to the light of reason.

    Have a humanitarian day!

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/18  at  02:14 PM

  36. why so shrill Tracy?  Can’t you engage in a debate without name calling or resorting to the same list of facts you always fall back upon?  How did Acmed Chalabi get in the coversation?

    This a guess on my part, just a guess, take it for what you will… I think you are so defensive/sensitive/shrill as a result of having grown up with a name that is mostly common to girls.

    Why don’t you go ride your bicycle in traffic?

    Al

    P.S.  It is obvious that you lack the critical skills to refute my argument about the capitalistic underpinnings on this country.  Here’s a tip Mr. McLellan - when you say you can refute an argument, not once, but twice, and then you fail to do so, it leads one to think you are full of crap.

    P.P.S.  Read some history books.

    P.P.P.S.  Abandon the histrionics.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/18  at  03:22 PM

  37. Rush should take another pill.  He also can’t hear, either.  The price you pay when you’re a blowhard, phoney baloney shill for the Warshington monied class.  He’s been duped and doesn’t know it.  His shtik only plays for so long. 

    Clear Channel throws helicopter money at Rush.  ‘Bread and Circus’ is a better description for his antics.

    In the end he will be a broken man who sold his soul for a few pieces of silver.

    If you want critical thinking, listen to Noam.  If you want to listen to a brainless twit, listen to Rush.  You yourself will be witless, too.

    Hooray

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/18  at  06:33 PM

  38. Re-read my posts you twits… I never said I listened to Rush Limbaugh.  I said he has a right to free speech. The same right to free speech as Al Franken, Eleanor Clift, Lawrence O’Donnell, Maureen O’Down, Helen Thomas, Noam Chomsky, Dan Rather, Tracy McLellan and all of you other pinko, commie, America-hating, Che Guevera worshiping, pro-Hamas, baby aborting radicals.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/18  at  07:24 PM

  39. Didn’t mean to get your goat, Al.  However, since I have, I think I’ll keep it.

    Anywho, you need to learn a thing or two about a thing or two. 

    Come back when you have finished your formal schooling.

    Noam can teach you a thing or two about a thing or two.

    It would be wise for you to listen up, buster.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/19  at  09:16 AM

  40. Al,

    Just so you know, debating those who have nothing but a political identity is useless—perhaps, even an exercise in anti-intellectualism. It is probably best to let them wander undisturbed in the wasteland of pop-philosophers and Marxists sychophants. They are harmless, just as Chomsky is harmless. The regurgitation of a disproven theory that lacks both context and a relationship with human nature is, at best, a tool to seem witty or educated or “radical”. Its the identity that matters, even more than stated values, principles or beliefs. Its merely a mask that is worn to hide the lack of depth, spirit and passion of mediocre men and women. Nothing more. They imagine they are smart enough to create or impose systems and values on society—while lacking the practical insight and reasoning skills to construct anything resembling a foundation. Yes, they are merely the engineers of absurd, second-hand abstractions...borrowed from 18th century thinkers. They take pride in being “unique” or “innovative”, yet are, in fact, nothing but a rehash of what had been done, said better 200 years ago. For this reason, to converse with them is absurd. It is similar to debating the value of being a “Goth” or “Punk Rocker” or “Bowling League enthusiast”. To debate an identity is to debate what isn’t even shallow. Since to be shallow requires a certain degree of depth.

    Posted by Cannon Yonts from Cannon Yonts  on  12/19  at  11:31 AM

  41. Cannon

    When you say nothing but a political identity, as if that’s an argument, are you talking about no Hummer?  No bulging corporate wallet?  No access to the corrupt political process in the form of big money to make in campaign contributions to our so-called elected leaders?  No reactionary-funded think tanks from which to draw fat stipends?  What else does one need besides a political identity to be able to engage in the debate and political process?

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/19  at  12:46 PM

  42. “When you say nothing but a political identity, as if that’s an argument, are you talking about no Hummer?”

    I’m talking about those who selectively apply values they claim to believe. For instance, who talk about human rights, yet are silent as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and China exploit these rights. Who said nothing as Saddam murdered his people. Who preach tolerance unless it relates to conservatives, capitalists, “rednecks” or anyone who doesn’t share your identity. I’m referring to those who have abandoned intellectual integrity and real human values (not those invented by Chomsky and Ward Churchill) in order to serve a pathetic caricature of what it means to be human.

    “ No bulging corporate wallet?  No access to the corrupt political process in the form of big money to make in campaign contributions to our so-called elected leaders?”

    Economically: Don’t buy from corporations and start your own cooperatives where the income is distributed. Our system doesn’t prevent you from doing this. Unlike Cuba, the US is strong enough (intellectually and economically) to stomach some socialistic experiments. If it works within a free market system, you will have done something besides being a ideological sychophant and cynic. All that prevents you from doing this is your inability to innovate and add value to others.

    Politically: Win an election. Prove to Americans you are smarter than they are and can make better decisions for them than they can make themselves. Once again, our system does not prevent you from selling you ideology—it simply doesn’t force others to buy your ideology. Which is why you are politically irrelevant.

    “ No reactionary-funded think tanks from which to draw fat stipends?”

    I detect jealousy. Don’t be alarmed, there are countless Leftist think tanks (called colleges) where folks like Ward Churchill and Chomsky can draw a nice salary by teaching middle-upper class students self-loathing and the other finery of their political identity.

    “ What else does one need besides a political identity to be able to engage in the debate and political process? “

    Granted, you can debate what you like if you actually sought to find more than an echo of your own views or a validation of your own identity. I simply pointed out that those interested in debate need not seek this noble undertaking in the company of folks who are the shell of a political identity. Debate requires some distance between the abstraction of identity and its associated rhetoric. Perhaps, when you’ve matured - you will understand this.

    As for engaging in the political process, I encourage you to continue. Just because the majority of Americans view your political ideology as repulsive doesn’t mean you are prohibited from advancing it. We are strong enough for it and have the intellectual courage for it.

    Posted by Cannon Yonts from  on  12/19  at  01:16 PM

  43. Here in sovietized murka the ecomonic machine that was once the powerhouse of capitalism is no more.

    What killed it?

    The State.

    The clueless need to be informed.  The US is no longer a capitalist economy nor a constitutional republic, just a statist monster that has no rhyme nor reason.

    The constitutional republic is dead.  There is a group of people who call themselves ‘Republicans,’ but they aren’t.  They have corrupted the US government to meet their own ends and that’s it.

    It’s over, no matter how it is analyzed, purported or propagandized.  The US is not the murka I once knew.

    Call it what you want, but it ain’t freedom.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/19  at  01:47 PM

  44. “Here in sovietized murka the ecomonic machine that was once the powerhouse of capitalism is no more. “

    Hmmm...I suppose this is what we expect from those who have never studied economics outside the confines of an Intro to Marxism course. Come now, take a Macro- and Micro- economics course—then, work your way to some comparative economics. A book by Friedman or Toffler or just look at the data on the number of small businesses created in the last 10 years. Being well-versed on pop-philosophy and conspiracy theories and the rantings of those who benefit from the cottage industry of anti-Americanism does not make one an intellectual.

    “What killed it?

    The State. “

    If its dead (which it most certainly isn’t), it will be killed by the mediocre, the half-witted and those lacking courage to take risks and add value. In short, American capitalism will only be destroyed when we find comfort in the self-loathing, nihlistic, pathetic identity of ideological caricatures.

    “The clueless need to be informed.  The US is no longer a capitalist economy nor a constitutional republic, just a statist monster that has no rhyme nor reason. “

    The problem with regurgitating the bile of intellectual retards is that one must embrace both nausea and an after taste of the absurd.


    “The constitutional republic is dead.  There is a group of people who call themselves ‘Republicans,’ but they aren’t.  They have corrupted the US government to meet their own ends and that’s it. “

    I should strive to portary myself as a “radical”. Not becuase I hold these convictions, but because I am growing weary of the mediocrity, redundancy and lack of spirit within this rhetoric. I’m certain I could provide a much more interesting and slightly less discurive rant.

    “It’s over, no matter how it is analyzed, purported or propagandized.  The US is not the murka I once knew.

    Call it what you want, but it ain’t freedom.”

    Give any redneck a joint, the English version of PRAVDA and 15 minutes alone - along with a 9th grade education - and he could create more elegant rhetoric than what was presented above.

    Posted by Cannon Yonts from  on  12/19  at  02:32 PM

  45. Did you smoke a joint before or after you wrote your mindless drivel?

    Whatever, you have a nice day.  I work to make a living here on earth.  I’ve got eighth grade, not the ninth. 

    I don’t use drugs.  I have no use for them.

    I do wish Dr. Chomsky a happy birthday.

    I still have my copy of Linquistics somewhere in my library.

    Posted by MDPB from  on  12/19  at  03:30 PM

  46. Gee, I thought that you would point out my incorrect spelling of the word ‘linguistics,’ but no.

    Whatsamatta U?

    I thunk I got Cannon’s goat, too.  So be it.

    Poor babies

    It is no longer a constitutional republic.  Do you know why?  Here is the answer:  Only US minted gold and silver coin is legal tender.  The money has been debased and is illegal.  Funny money, as it were.  Lenin won.  Just like that.

    Whatever murka is now, it is not what it once was.

    Have a nice day.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/20  at  09:22 AM

  47. It’s not worth the exasperation of refuting Cannon.  He drones on and on the same cryto-capitalist Ayn Randite drivel.  I’m going to close my comments on this argument with a quote from your Nietzsche, Cannon: A will to a system is a lack of integrity.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  12/20  at  11:17 AM

  48. “A will to a system is a lack of integrity.”

    Yes, that is why Marxists and Communists have no integrity. They choose a system, an abstraction which is counter to human nature. This is why Chomsky is a mere pop-philosopher: he values his abstraction ("system") more than real men and women. The system is more important than the individual. The abstraction is a moral imperative in itself and what conflicts with this is evil (including human nature and intellectual integrity).

    Free markets are successful because they conform to natural courses of human behavior. Free market economics does not require the negation of the individual to exist (contrary to all Leftist ideologies, “systems"). Free markets are strong enough to endure folks setting up their own co-operatives (which Leftist don’t do because they lack the will to add value, test their abstractions, courage?). Capitalism is but one form of free market economies. Because you lack the intellectual prowess to create a new free market model that is more efficient than a capitalist one, you choose a model that negates free markets and the individual as a means of proving your “humanism”. Impressive. Of course, to implement your model would require force and a certain degree of genocide (ask the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, etc)...but we all know that Leftist value their abstraction much more than real men and women anyway. Individuals are but a tool of the collective abstraction. You know what’s best for the “masses”—what products/services they want, who should make them, where they should be made, how much they should cost, where you can purchase them, etc. Indeed, the Left feels it was bestowed with the power to determine not only what should be valued-- but what “value” is. It is the abstract system of the absurd.

    Posted by Cannon Yonts from  on  12/20  at  02:06 PM

  49. The system (The State) (the phony baloney system called the US government) is more important than the individual. 

    W-A-C-O

    The ‘abstraction’ killed how many individuals?

    Free market economy?  You have got to be kidding.  Right?  Go buy something made in China.  It’s about the only choice you have these days in this ‘free market’ economy.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/20  at  11:20 PM

  50. The Ford F-350 I drive wasn’t made in China.  Neither was my Smith & Wesson.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/21  at  11:32 AM

  51. You had better check out those parts in that worthless Ford you have.

    My Suburban gets good gas mileage.  I bagged two deer this fall with my two sons.  We use highpowered rifles, not some dinky six-shooter.

    Those who can afford it, drive 300 thousand dollar motor homes.  When they gas up, it’s at least a hundred gallons of fuel each stop.

    Of course, when the US Navy stops for gas, it’s hundreds of thousands of barrels of diesel fuel.

    The US Navy uses sixteen percent of all of the diesel fuel consumed each throughout the entire world.  They don’t fool around when it comes to consuming energy sources.

    You have a Merry Christmas.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/21  at  12:02 PM

  52. That should read:  consumed each ‘year’

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/21  at  12:11 PM

  53. I like how everything I say gets attacked on this thread.  I could say my favorite color is green and I’d get my chops busted that only racist neo-cons like the color green.

    Now MDPB is attacking my vehicle.  Hey MDPB, how’s that transmission in your Suburban?  Does it race whenever you hit the gas on an incline like all GMC transmissions do?  Don’t be so petty.  Why are moonbat liberals always so petty?

    Bravo to Mr. Cannon Yonts who thoroughly shredded MDPB and MISTER Tracy Morgan in his post # 48 above.  Mr. Yonts rendered an devastating and entertaining ass-blistering on your two to which neither of you could muster a substantive retort.  Mr. Yonts, you can come over to my compound anytime to drink some budwieser and blast some sporting clays with the various and sundry firearms from my well stocked armory.  You are a fine American sir.

    As for you other two.... you boys need to grow a pair.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/21  at  04:21 PM

  54. It made it to Alaska and back without a single problem.  The finest vehicle that has ever hit the road, a Suburban is.

    As for Fords, I’ve had them.  Those cold-blooded 302’s are for the birds.  Ford Motor is trading just above eight bucks per share; a huge fall from grace.

    I have yet to hear any kind of retort from Cannon.

    He’s looking for his goat, I guess.

    Last time I shot clay pigeons, I was going on fifteen years old.  I have no time for child’s play anymore.

    Now, go cry in your beer for a while.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/21  at  10:33 PM

  55. One more thing, It covered over eight hundred miles on one fill-up. 

    Northern British Columbia has beauty beyond compare.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/21  at  10:41 PM

  56. MDPB:

    Crying is not a behavior in which I engage and sadness is not an emotion I feel when I read your posts.  To the contray, I usually find myself horse-laughing at the socialist stupidity which you spew.

    When I become dictator, you and your likes will be the first to be rounded up.

    Merry X-mas.

    Al

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/22  at  08:44 AM

  57. You a dictator?  That’s a knee-slapper.

    Maybe you could even develop a soviet-apeman warrior like Stalin tried to do.  You never know.

    You might horse-laugh, but you bray like a jackass.

    Wouldn’t want to be a socialist/Republican brand of political animal that the US Congress currently has sitting there taking up time and space.  They’re a clueless, witless sorry lot of human specimens.

    You have a nice Christmas.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/22  at  11:42 AM

  58. here’s some real scary news for you.

    Posted by MDPB from  on  12/22  at  12:03 PM

  59. Your news piece failed to scare me.  I am not really worried about debt to GDP ratio.  It gets out of hand every now and again and then Congress pulls its head out of its collective arse and reins in spending.  This is one issue where I will take aim at republicans as well.  Government spending is way out of control.  All politicians spend like drunken sailors.  That’s why I find the label of Neo-Con on the Bush Administration so laughable.  This administration is not nearly conservative enough.  At anyrate, it’s all part of the circle of economic life Symba.

    As dictator, I fully intend on cloning my own apeman army and they will be paying you a visit in the very near future for insinuating that I am a jackass.  What’s up with the liberals always resorting to name calling?  Can you not engage in any intelligent banter and reparte’? 
    You sure are a tough guy with thousands of miles of internet cable separating you from me.  I highly doubt you would be brave enough to talk to me that way in person without me delivering a serious ass whipping.  So try to stop being so salty and engage in critical thinking and debate if you are so capable.  I have my doubts.

    Happy Kwanzaa Tough Guy.

    Al

    P.S.  F Tookie.

    Posted by Al Kilya from hell  on  12/22  at  02:40 PM

  60. yeah, yeah, yeah.  You are the one with the threatening user name.  You are the one using towsends of miles of cable to protect your own arse.

    ‘Contray’ to what you want to think, I am hardly a ‘liberal.’ You can think whatever you want, it’s your noosphere.

    It’s been fun, now I am going back to the real world.

    Posted by MDPB from here  on  12/22  at  10:18 PM

  61. Messrs. Yonts & Kilya:  2
    Messrs. McCLellan & MBPD:  0

    Posted by SCOREBOARD from -=-  on  12/28  at  09:02 PM
    62. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Washington Post Elevates Insider Wisdom - Makes Popular Outrage Invisible

    Previous entry: It's Freaky: Anarchism No Longer a Fringe Passion at the Post

    [ads]

    Support Press Action