posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by Asktheanimals
I'm addressing what Chomsky writes in this article.
Really? By starting out with this?
Chomsky is a blazing liberal trying to maintain the façade of centrist. Every chance he gets he pokes and prods Republicans and decries the state of
the Union as if the Democrats had no power at all.
I'm not widely read on his other works and am not trying to address that here.
"Every chance he gets" indicates you are not referring to one essay but many or all of them.
You then quote the beginnings of several paragraphs, entirely losing the context.
Where's the equal time for Democrats?
The Washington debacle's immediate source was the sharp shift to the right among the political class. In the past, the U.S. has sometimes been
described sardonically—but not inaccurately—as a one-party state: the business party, with two factions called Democrats and Republicans.
That is no longer true. The U.S. is still a one-party state, the business party. But it only has one faction: moderate Republicans, now called New
Democrats (as the U.S. Congressional coalition styles itself).
You don't see that his defining of Democrats today as moderate Republicans as a criticism? It very much is and it's not one he is alone in doling
out. Some Democrats and then many of us on the Left feel that Democrats today and namely Obama himself are more accurately defined as moderate
Republicans, my personal take being that Obama swings extreme hard Right in a few important areas.
The rest of his essay, when he says Republican Establishment or Republican anything... he is including Democrats as well. What he is saying is that
the "Business Party" is no longer made up of Democrats and Republicans as the two factions within it but extremist Right and moderate Right. How do
you miss this context?
I agree with much of what Chomsky writes in other pieces but he carefully avoids some of the most important issues of our time and steps around them
like a minefield (WTC 7 - "no opinion", really?) so in that sense I think he's a gatekeeper.
Is he supposed to possess insider knowledge or something? The man lives and breathes logic, something many, many people lack in magnitude and so
because he approaches the issue logically or rather states why he doesn't have an opinion on Building 7 due to lack of applying logic to the issue...
he's a gatekeeper? Are you serious? Do you have the slightest clue how ridiculous you sound? That sounds like a friggin cult response...
I have a caveat with him because I strongly disagree with him on several important issues including MMGW.
LMFAO of course you do.
Peer reviewed scientific evidence of AGW vs no peer reviewed scientific evidence of any intentional destruction of WTC 7 and he's the one with the