Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: Phred]
    #9346673 - 12/01/08 07:35 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Phred Kromm isn't just biased. He has a direct conflict with Chomsky since he is pro-US-imperialism and his neutrality is in no way the reason his article is crap. His article is crap because the arguments are weak. I already outlined it but let me re-cap quickly since entering into your rant mode seems to cut your brain off from your memory.

Example 1: Had Chomsky passing a summary of what Truman implied in a speech written as a quote. When Chomsky was made aware of this it was corrected.
Example 2: Didn't misrepresent Huntington's assessment of the tactical situation at all. Though Chomsky did fail to mention that Huntington preferred accommodation to confrontation. Huntington's analysis proved correct, however his recommendations during the time in the cold war are laughable at best. Either way it is moot since Chomsky isn't worried about Huntington's recommendations in Vietnam after the fact. Why on earth then should he be expected to include them?
Example 3: is not out of context at all. In fact Chomsky's shortened version is less damning than the reality that it was another murderous dictator backed to prevent communists from gaining even a small parcel of land.

You see Kromm doesn't actually cite anything terribly damning at all and this is my problem with it. In addition you have lied in saying the leftist sources that you claimed would have articles critical of Chomsky's "lies". So who should I believe someone who is called the greatest intellectual alive or someone who in the middle of a world wide recession, that had started almost a year earlier, declared that the Dow was plummeting because a democrat won the presidency? This is total lunacy if you expect me to believe you.

As I said before you have not provided a good cite or a good article to justify your position. If I were you and you were me, and this was the best I could come up with here, (what you've linked to and claimed here) you would probibly ban or warn me for not providing a source/providing a false source and name-calling. Thankfully though I am not you I am a mature adult who is capable of considdering another person's perspective. If you had a legitimate argument or cite that actually showed something significantly damning of Chomsky I would love to see it. However, do not have the audacity to not look up your own sources to show something that reasonably justifies your claims and call me lazy for not doing this for you. I admit it will be difficult because there are a lot of crap arguements to pollute the internet from what I've seen with regards to this subject. Why don't you start with what convinced you? Did you already? Is is not possible that you were excessively easily convinced of this without perhaps applying the same standards to Chomsky that you would to others?

Instead of citing cites you've made with long annoying rants about this and that from your partisan worldview. I don't care, though all I see is you blabbing on and on and not making with the facts to back up your argument. If you spent half the time researching as you do key-flapping you'd probibly have something more compelling to show for yourself but you don't and it's possible you don't even know how to spot a strong argument on the subject.

BTW you may think you've known what hard work is but you ain't got shit on me or my current situation. Your attempt to make your childhood job (the toughest job you claim to have worked) sound grueling is a little laughable. Either way the point still stands you have no right to tell me that I should be expected to sort through a myriad of links to prove your argument while my time is so consumed. Furthermore, I don't think you have a right to demand I prove your asinine claims even if I were a jobless bum.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: ScavengerType]
    #9346690 - 12/01/08 07:37 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

PS I was not drunk during that post, as the emoticon says, FYI.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblericeandpeas
Stranger
Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 121
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: Phred]
    #9349428 - 12/02/08 04:56 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

quote]Phred said:

I chose Kamm not because his words become more accurate due to the fact that he is a Lefty,




He isn't a lefty. He supported the re-election of George Bush. Explain how someone is a lefty if they support George Bush.

Quote:


It seems the only way to defuse the cry of "bias" would be to quote someone to the Left of Noam, but that - unfortunately - is impossible, since there is no one to the left of Noam.




Own up, have you ever read Chomsky? Other than what you see on right-wing blogs? You are clearly utterly ignorant of his work.

Quote:

No one employed by Rupert Murdoch votes Labour?




Did I say this? Reading comprehension Noddy. 

Quote:

Huntington (and Truman and Moynihan) actually said to what Chomsky claims Huntington (and Truman and Moynihan) said is somehow invalid.




Kamm is a discredited liar. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Kamm, for one. Hitchens, for another.




As has been proved countless times, neither of these people are lefties much less "stone british lefties". Can you name anyone else? You are the one who claims there are so many yet you keep repeating the same two names. Why is that?

Quote:

What has that to do with the well-established fact that Chomsky is a serial liar?




That's only an established fact in your mind and the deranged right-wing bloggers you quote as gospel.

Back in the real world he's the "most important intellectual alive" (New York Times)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblericeandpeas
Stranger
Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 121
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: ScavengerType]
    #9349435 - 12/02/08 05:03 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
In addition you have lied in saying the leftist sources that you claimed would have articles critical of Chomsky's "lies".




LOL! That really was a whopper he told.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJaComet
Old Hand

Registered: 11/12/02
Posts: 347
Loc: Out Yonder
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: riceandpeas]
    #9349564 - 12/02/08 05:59 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Ahhh . . . boyz and gurlz here, you’re gonna love this series of articles.

Inside The LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html

Interesting where all these 60’s music icons came from.

“ . .  and there’s this guy . . .  from the CIA . . .and he’s creeping around Laurel Canyon . . .”
- Frank Zappa - Plastic people (1967)


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: ScavengerType]
    #9349752 - 12/02/08 07:38 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

You  guys are just incredible. You continue the ad hominem attack rather than admit Kamm devastated ole Noam. Kamm is a Lefty whether you guys care to admit or not. But it doesn't matter if he is or isn't a Lefty, and it doesn't matter what motivated him to expose Noam for the fraud he is. What matters is that he exposed Noam for a fraud.

Quote:

Example 1: Had Chomsky passing a summary of what Truman implied in a speech written as a quote. When Chomsky was made aware of this it was corrected.

Example 2: Didn't misrepresent Huntington's assessment of the tactical situation at all.




Bullshit. What he did to Samuel Huntington was as blatant an example of intellectual dishonesty as one can find. Chomsky deliberately omitted a key concluding sentence, then linked the now-enucleated partial quote to two other phrases which had appeared earlier in the piece in question in order to fabricate a "conclusion" by Huntington diametrically opposed to what Huntington actually said.  One thing the critics don't dispute is that Chomsky is an intelligent man. What he did to Huntington is not the kind of thing an intelligent man does accidentally -- particularly when he does it over and over again and particularly when he denies having done it when caught at it. Yes, in the first example (in his very first ever book) he does offer a self-serving "apology" of sorts for misrepresenting Truman's words. That's the last time he ever did that.

Quote:

Example 3: is not out of context at all. In fact Chomsky's shortened version is less damning than the reality that it was another murderous dictator backed to prevent communists from gaining even a small parcel of land.




The third example is essentially Chomsky doing to Moynihan exactly what he did to Huntington, with an added twist -- he not only again quotes out of context, then strings unrelated passages together, he goes further and resorts to outright fabrication when he claims Moynihan "in the next sentence goes on to say that he's aware of the nature of that success". No such remark appears anywhere in Moynihan's book.

Quote:

You see Kromm doesn't actually cite anything terribly damning at all and this is my problem with it.




Kamm cites in meticulous detail three instances of Chomsky deliberately misquoting people in order to bolster his crank theories. That you see nothing wrong with this says volumes about either your morals or your intelligence, take your pick. Collier and Horowitz provide dozens more examples of this and similar dishonesty in their book, "The Anti-Chomsky Reader". I suggest you pick up a copy and follow along with them as they devastate Chomsky's shabby methods.

Quote:

So who should I believe someone who is called the greatest intellectual alive...




By whom? A single commentator. And you got even that part wrong - he was not called the "greatest" intellectual alive, but the most important or the most influential or something like that.

Again, we observe your insistence on relying on ad hominem. Kamm's work is accurate and repeatable. The fact that it was brought to your attention by me doesn't alter the fact that Chomsky deliberately and dishonestly  grossly manipulated the words of Truman, Huntington and Moynihan. Anyone can gather the works in question and see for themselves how Noam did it. That would remain as true if it were brought to your attention by Obama or Kucinich. What matters is the information, not the person who showed you were to obtain the information.

Quote:

As I said before you have not provided a good cite or a good article to justify your position.




As I have said before, you are too lazy to go to the links I provide and read them through. Why should I provide even more? I provided you a link to a site with over a hundred articles by dozens of authors covering over a dozen areas of Chomsky fraud. How many of those articles have you read? My bet is none, since it took you days to even get around to reading a single article by Oliver Kamm. Have you gone to a library and checked out "The Anti-Chomsky Reader?" Why no.... no you haven't. And you won't. So why continue the sham that you have any interest in discovering the truth about Chomsky's dishonesty? We all know you have exactly zero interest in having your idol shown up for the shabby little crank he really is.

Quote:

Why don't you start with what convinced you?




Already done in past threads about Chomsky. As I explained in those threads, I had discovered long before I had ever read any of Chomsky's critics that Chomsky was a dishonest hack, because I knew the facts about many of the topics he covered, and it was obvious Chomsky was just making stuff up. Look, Sparky, it isn't difficult to discredit Chomsky's fever-swamp ramblings - that's why there are quite literally hundreds (perhaps thousands by now) of articles discrediting Chomsky's fever-swamp ramblings. Anyone with a decent working knowledge of the events of the day will have no difficulty identifying several howlers in any Chomsky work. Real experts will identify many more than several.

Quote:

BTW you may think you've known what hard work is but you ain't got shit on me or my current situation. Your attempt to make your childhood job (the toughest job you claim to have worked) sound grueling is a little laughable. Either way the point still stands you have no right to tell me that I should be expected to sort through a myriad of links to prove your argument while my time is so consumed. Furthermore, I don't think you have a right to demand I prove your asinine claims even if I were a jobless bum.




Get the chip off your shoulder, Sparky. You have little to no knowledge of most of the topics you choose to write about here, so it's not surprising you haven't the faintest idea of the things I've done to support myself over the years. Once again we see demonstrated as if in a textbook lesson the standard response of the Lefty beaten like a gong in factual debate: the reflexive resort to ad hominem attack. Nothing Phred says is worthy of consideration because he hasn't done enough grunt work over the course of his life.  And your lack of reading comprehension is showing again - for the fifth time in this thread I couldn't give a damn if you never click on my links, if you never read the scrupulously supported proofs of Chomsky's mendacity from dozens of different authors, if you never bother to glance at "The Anti-Chomsky Reader". I mean that sincerely. Your continued belief in Chomsky's childish and hilariously silly worldview is of no more import to me than your continued belief in the stupefyingly ridiculous concepts of Anarchism and ParEcon.

I'm not "demanding" you prove any of my claims. I'm not even demanding you read any of Chomsky's critics. Don't you get it yet? I couldn't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what you believe about anything, much less about the most famous intellectual fraud still living.

There's a certain type of mentality which finds Chomsky's bullshit comforting, and until a person grows out of that mentality, he will fight viciously to hold on to that comfort. Sadly, the mentality can be changed only from within, not from without. Happily, this change normally occurs as the person gathers more life experience. There's a reason the vast majority of Chomskybots are college undergrads. There's a reason almost no one out of their Thirties takes his ramblings seriously.






Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: Phred]
    #9355230 - 12/02/08 11:00 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Actually, though Komm and the original authors complain, little is lost of their words. The quotes are shortened and do reflect their analysis as it is relevant after the fact and to the topic of discussion. Komm is not a neutral source and his critique is not even noteworthy unless compared to the other inane crap I found searching for this "mountain of information" on the subject. As I said earlier and am still maintaining all I see is a bunch of conjecture and hardly any proof. At best it shows Chomsky has been a little sloppy, I'd hardly say you've offered any evidence he is some linguist mastermind manipulating language to convince people American imperialism exists. Frankly I think using a low bar as you have set by Kromm one could probibly prove the same thing about most political publications.

If you don't care why are you ranting on and on about it. I don't care if you worked hard or not. The only reason it came up is that you were badgering me to search to prove your point for you and I said I was working hard 10 hour days and you had no right to demand I search to prove your point.

In fact why have you been ranting on to 5 pages claiming this with no solid evidence to back it up, refusing to even do any research for a legitimate source, and claiming on top of that that you do not care what my opinion is? It seems to me you do care but are totally unwilling to do research prove your exorbitant claims.

grow up


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: JaComet]
    #9355353 - 12/02/08 11:22 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

JaComet said:
Ahhh . . . boyz and gurlz here, you’re gonna love this series of articles.

Inside The LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html

Interesting where all these 60’s music icons came from.

“ . .  and there’s this guy . . .  from the CIA . . .and he’s creeping around Laurel Canyon . . .”
- Frank Zappa - Plastic people (1967)




Goddamn...  The circumstances surrounding the 60s counterculture were sketchy as fuck.  Sooo many coincidences.  Another thing that I don't believe that article mentioned was that Sharon Tate's father was also a United States Army officer who was "promoted and transferred several times."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblericeandpeas
Stranger
Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 121
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: Phred]
    #9355759 - 12/03/08 12:39 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
You  guys are just incredible. You continue the ad hominem attack rather than admit Kamm devastated ole Noam. Kamm is a Lefty whether you guys care to admit or not. But it doesn't matter if he is or isn't a Lefty, and it doesn't matter what motivated him to expose Noam for the fraud he is. What matters is that he exposed Noam for a fraud.





No he didn't. Scavengertype has dispensed with all of Kamms worthless points several times in this thread. I have the feeling that even if Kamm himself told you he was lying you would still believe what he said.

Quote:

it isn't difficult to discredit Chomsky's fever-swamp ramblings - that's why there are quite literally hundreds (perhaps thousands by now) of articles discrediting Chomsky's fever-swamp ramblings.




Don't be silly. The fact that some right-winger with access to his moms computer writes "Bubba told me Chomsky done a wrong" in his blog is meaningless.

What you need is reliable articles based on fact as opposed to childish prejudice. And judging from your endless emotional tirades you are obviously incredibly short on those.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJaComet
Old Hand

Registered: 11/12/02
Posts: 347
Loc: Out Yonder
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: it stars saddam]
    #9356162 - 12/03/08 04:51 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

You can pretty much take this info to the bank.  Dave has done his research. I lived part of this story and always had my doubts about the ‘spontaneity” of developments. Had contacts within the Dead camp and expect Mickey Hart could easily remember me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineC.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Male


Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: it stars saddam]
    #9358081 - 12/03/08 01:17 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

When Sharon Tate was murdered I was a student at UCLA and lived down the street. Manson was a regular on hollywood blvd., they would drive their bus up and down the blvd. looking for people who wanted to party at their ranch. (a safe place). It is amazing how much information there is on this subject, but I think charlie tried to buy acid at the house and was arbitrarily dismissed. I think they hurt his feelings, and he decided to kill them. At least that is what the street was saying. I was taking political science at the time, and was allowed to go to the trial instead of class. It was the only A I got that year.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: C.M. Mann]
    #9358203 - 12/03/08 01:31 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Wow, man.  It must have been amazing to be around during those times.  Did you ever have any contact with Manson?  Also, do you feel that the "helter skelter" race war theory as a motive for the murders has any credibility or was it mostly fabricated by the prosecution?  I'm curious as to what kind of things really went down at the ranch.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: riceandpeas]
    #9359120 - 12/03/08 03:23 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

riceandpeas writes:

Quote:

Scavengertype has dispensed with all of Kamms worthless points several times in this thread.




Actually, no he hasn't. He hasn't negated in the slightest what Kamm pointed out, he has merely proclaimed that he, ScavengerType, doesn't feel such blatant dishonesty is a big deal.

Quote:

Don't be silly. The fact that some right-winger with access to his moms computer writes "Bubba told me Chomsky done a wrong" in his blog is meaningless.




Sadly for your argument, this is not the case. There are prominent academics such as Arthur Schlesinger on that list, as well as some of Chomsky's (reformed) fellow travelers such as David Horowitz, and well-known Lefty defense lawyers such as Alan Dershowitz. Christopher Hitchens doesn't meet the definition of a blogger either. As I have pointed out repeatedly and you have evaded repeatedly, Chomsky has been exposed as dishonest since the publication of his very first book. This book was published long before there were blogs or  an internet or even personal computers. That's what is so tedious about the whole Chomsky schtick - he was conclusively exposed as a serial liar four decades ago, and he hasn't reformed himself by an iota in all that time. He's still spewing the same old hackneyed bullshit from forty years ago unchanged. He's stuck in a Sixties time warp.

Quote:

What you need is reliable articles based on fact as opposed to childish prejudice.




Kamm's article is factual. Anyone can obtain the relevant source materials and see for themselves that Kamm represents Chomsky's words exactly, without distortion, and that he represents the words of Truman, Huntington, and Moynihan exactly, without distortion. Kamm exhibits no childishness or prejudice in his demonstration, he merely lays out precisely the deliberate falsification Chomsky perpetrated. It's not Kamm who is exhibiting childishness here.

If you find Kamm's articles insufficient, go to the link I provided earlier in the thread and check out the more than a hundred articles there by dozens of different authors covering over a dozen categories of Chomsky's fraudulent writings.

But if you really want to nail it down beyond a shadow of a doubt, get your hands on the book by Collier and Horowitz and follow along with their demonstrations.

Quote:

And judging from your endless emotional tirades you are obviously incredibly short on those.




LOL! "Emotional" "tirades"? Sorry, Jethro, you have confused me with ScavengerType.






Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: Phred]
    #9360619 - 12/03/08 06:30 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Do your own research I'm sick of reading your crap. You claimed Chomsky was a liar and that he would unapologetically lie and take people out of context. Kromm's article didn't exactly prove that to be true in any remote sense. You lied more than once in this thread and I'm not going to go hunting for a worthwhile argument to prove your argument. Either you can do it your own damn self or you are a hack who will spend 5 pages trying to argue something but will not devote more than 5 mins to source something for it.
:bitchplease:

I've tried coaching, encouraging, demanding, coddling and even using reverse-psychology to get you to show a legitimate argument to prove your claims. You've instead just ranted and showed no proof to back up your claims.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineC.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Male


Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: it stars saddam]
    #9360693 - 12/03/08 06:45 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Never had contact, but saw him many times. The first time I saw any of them I was on hollywood blvd. The sidewalks were packed as usual, and their bus pulled up to a bus stop. A bunch of girls started piling out, and they were trying to influence the young guys to come out to the ranch. I am from Florida and I almost got caught up in the moment. I was standing by the open front door when a stranger whispered in my ear, 'be carefull, people have been turning up missing after getting on this bus'.................These kids thought charlie was 'God'.I think helter skelter was just a way to motivate his troops. His twisted mind could not take rejection, so he lashed out against those who could not see his greatness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledanielx
whatup!
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 6,500
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: riceandpeas]
    #9361007 - 12/03/08 07:30 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

never heard of MKULTRA pretty crazy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJaComet
Old Hand

Registered: 11/12/02
Posts: 347
Loc: Out Yonder
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: danielx]
    #9363845 - 12/04/08 05:52 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Not heard of MKULTRA? Well now, there's a "Long Strange Trip" if ever there was one.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: ScavengerType]
    #9367189 - 12/04/08 05:27 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Do your own research I'm sick of reading your crap.




I've done the research. And to save you some time, since you are working such long hours, I gave you links to over a hundred  articles by dozens of authors on over a dozen different areas Chomsky has spewed bullshit on. I also gave you the name of a book - The Anti-Chomsky Reader - which goes into considerably more detail than Oliver Kamm's single article. Kamm's  one short article demonstrated exhaustively in exacting detail three different instances of Chomsky deliberately lying about what his sources said, in order to bolster his paranoid Chomsky theories. Collier and Horowitz's book provides many, MANY more instances of Chomsky lying. And the authors of the over a hundred articles listed at that link give even more. There is no shortage of instances of Chomsky lying his ass off. That's why he's so famous for it and such an easy target - finding  a Chomsky lie is barely more difficult than shooting fish in a barrel.

Quote:

You claimed Chomsky was a liar and that he would unapologetically lie and take people out of context.




He is, and he does.

Quote:

Kromm's article didn't exactly prove that to be true in any remote sense.




See, this is why there is no point my investing time on those hypnotized by Chomsky's mendacity. They haven't the intellectual capacity to follow anything more complex than "United States bad. Israel bad. Capitalism double-plus bad. Khmer Rouge good." It's little different than trying to have a discussion with a Scientologist - L. Ron Hubbard is infallible and that's all there is to it.

However, any rational person carefully reading Kamm's article can see exactly how severely Chomsky misrepresented the words of Truman, Huntington, and Moynihan. When Chomsky says something as blatantly untrue (about Moynihan) as "...in the next sentence goes on to say that he's aware of the nature of that success," and a thorough search of the book reveals not only is there no such following sentence, but no such sentence anywhere else in the book either, a rational person would concede that Chomsky had lied about Moynihan's words. But a Chomskybot instead thinks to himself, "Hmmm. Who should I believe? Chomsky or Moynihan?" And the answer is always, "Chomsky, of course!"

Same thing with Huntington. Kamm details just how much editing, cutting and pasting, and re-arranging Chomsky had to do in order to get Huntington's "words" to agree with Chomsky's premises. Again, a rational person would have to admit that this remix was deliberate on Chomsky's part, but a Chomskytard will say to himself, "Hmmm. Who should I believe? Chomsky or my lying eyes?" And the answer is always (of course) "Chomsky!"

Quote:

You lied more than once in this thread and I'm not going to go hunting for a worthwhile argument to prove your argument.




No lies, Sparky, and again... you don't need to hunt for anything. Chomsky has been proven a lying hack for over four decades by dozens of different commentators. I've provided you with all the information you need to see that for yourself, if you can ever shake off the Chomsky brainwashing. Of course, you could if you wish spend a few months educating yourself on - for example - the fall of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge and the tragic aftermath thereof, then pick up any of Chomsky's many works on the subject and see for yourself just how dishonest Chomsky is when relating that story. It's like you're reading about two different planets.

But see, I've saved you months of your limited leisure time by providing you a link to a page that has around a dozen articles on Chomsky's Cambodian fantasies. You are so fortunate to be alive in the time of the internet. In a single reading session of a couple of hours you'll be able to absorb information about that time in history that took me years to acquire as I lived through it.

Quote:

Either you can do it your own damn self or you are a hack who will spend 5 pages trying to argue something but will not devote more than 5 mins to source something for it.




Sorry, but I'm beginning to find your idiosyncratic syntax a bit of a problem. Are you trying to say I haven't provided sources showing Chomsky's intellectual dishonesty? Because I have, repeatedly. Or are you trying to say that I am supposed to make the argument my own damn self? Because if so, I fail to see how my paraphrasing Dershowitz or Kamm or Horowitz or any of dozens of others would be any more effective than letting you read their words directly. My argument is the same as Kamm's and Collier's and Horowitz's and Bogdanor's and Schlesinger's and Kanfer's and DeLong's and Windschuttle's and Hitchens's and Kerstein's and Moriss's and  Taheri's and....

...but you get my drift. I could go on and list another couple of dozen but what's the point? You'll never make the effort to read them anyway.

Quote:

I've tried coaching, encouraging, demanding, coddling and even using reverse-psychology to get you to show a legitimate argument to prove your claims.




No you haven't. All you've done is claimed that because Kamm is not in your eyes a real Lefty, he therefore must be lying about what Chomsky said. Or about what Truman or Huntington or Moynihan said, I'm not sure which.

Let's for the moment ignore all the other Chomsky critics. Let's for the moment also ignore any other articles by Kamm about Chomsky. Let's instead concentrate just on that single one covering Truman, Huntington, and Moynihan. Kamm lays out in a very clear and easy to follow logical manner just exactly the differences between what these people said (or wrote) and what Chomsky claims they said (or wrote). He then shows how these differences have the (surprise, surprise!) effect of supporting Chomsky's pet theories when in actuality they oppose them. Anyone who can think rationally, possesses an average level of reading comprehension, and speaks English as a mother tongue can follow along and see for themselves what Kamm is demonstrating. It is indisputable that Chomsky has twisted the words of all three around (and in the case of Moynihan invented words out of thin air as well) to the point where they no longer accurately reflect what the person was communicating. Kamm says Chomsky did not do this accidentally. Given the fact that Chomsky is most definitely not of below average intelligence and that his area of greatest expertise is linguistics, any rational observer would reach the same conclusion - distortion of that level of sophistication (especially in the case of Huntington) is not produced accidentally. In other words, Chomsky was lying like a son of a bitch.

Quote:

You've instead just ranted and showed no proof to back up your claims.




You're the one ranting here, Sparky. I've showed abundant proof. Kamm's article is the one most readily to hand, but it's far from the only one. Go back to the thread in the archives I linked earlier and click on some of the links I provided in it. There was one done by some guy whose name escapes me dissecting just one of the many, MANY pieces Ole Noam did on Cambodia. The guy shows how every single reference Chomsky gave in that piece was portrayed dishonestly by Chomsky. Every one.

Or go to your local library and check out "The Anti-Chomsky Reader". If I could link you to an online version of it I would, but like so many other copyrighted books, it does not exist yet online. I could link you to dozens of reviews of the book which gave examples from it, but given your attitude to date you either wouldn't read them or you would claim the reviewers were lying about what is in the book because they are Neocons. Or something.

Enjoy the Koolaid, Sparky.






Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: Phred]
    #9367248 - 12/04/08 05:35 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

I liked it better when you called him Jethro.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: The US Government and the 60s counterculture [Re: riceandpeas]
    #9367257 - 12/04/08 05:36 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

riceandpeas said:


Don't be silly. The fact that some right-winger with access to his moms computer writes "Bubba told me Chomsky done a wrong" in his blog is meaningless.

What you need is reliable articles based on fact as opposed to childish prejudice. And judging from your endless emotional tirades you are obviously incredibly short on those.





Fallacy count:  appeal to authority, ad hominem...


If you don't want to address the point then don't.  Dismissing an argument as the result of a nut is not an argument at all.  You are calling people names and demanding someone with some recognition make the point, this does not address the issue you seem to oppose at all.


This is not effective discourse.  If you find the argument lacking tell us why.  I don't care that you don't like the station in life of the proponents.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An interview with Noam Chomsky
( 1 2 3 all )
Phred 3,960 46 09/16/04 10:25 AM
by Xlea321
* Chomsky on how to get out
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 2,041 32 05/14/04 08:15 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Noam Chomsky on the Drug War
( 1 2 all )
xnevermore 4,994 32 10/09/02 02:01 PM
by EchoVortex
* Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PsiloKitten 11,197 93 11/02/13 08:08 PM
by Yogi1
* Chomsky on the Drug War delian 1,995 10 08/25/01 07:56 PM
by headphone
* 60% of Brits despise Bush and do not want him in UK mjshroomer 1,055 13 12/22/03 10:41 AM
by G a n j a
* Goodbye Government Tyranny, Hello Assault Rifle!
( 1 2 3 4 all )
retread 4,472 62 09/18/04 07:20 PM
by RandalFlagg
* checking government power Silversoul 925 14 03/04/05 11:18 PM
by Silversoul

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
9,938 topic views. 4 members, 11 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.