Chomsky vs Buckley

Stratslayer Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - Chomsky is famous for psuedo intellectual complaints.....not answers. I challenge HIM to preside over some "perfect world " of his OWN making. I'm sure it would be devoid of any major problems. MY ASSSSS !!!!!! Any idiot can complain. Capitalism is no worse overall ( it is factually a better wealth and opportunity building system ) than Communism or Socialism so, in the end, people like Chomsky can complain until the Sun novas, but can only efficiently do that.....complain.

Stratslayer Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - As for "style" and "command" of topic. Chomsky LIVES and BREATHES complaints concerning governing systems. Buckley didn't. Buckley had to be fairly well versed on a wide variety of issues and even specific bills and laws. Buckley is every bit as intelligent....just not as focused on Chomskey's obsessions. I DO think that Buckley underestimated Chomsky's command of topic here though and would have fared much better had he not have. I lived during that time. Buckley was a genius.

IndianKBlue Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - Buckley doesn't show genius here. He shows an intellectual dishonesty by rather forcibly steering the conversation away when Chomsky was clearly on the verge of fully making clear his points. He spent 18 minutes constantly interrupting someone who is obviously more knowledgeable about the way the world works. By that measure, I don't imagine Buckley ever was or could have been a "genius". Just a talented conversationalist, probably too talented for his own good.

IndianKBlue Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - Chomsky was a linguist above all. You could learn from him in that regard. You overuse words like Socialism and Capitalism. The U.S., for example, can be called neither of those things. It is, perhaps, some sort of mixture. It is far more complicated, and no government could ever hold over pure, unabated Capitalism. There are "commonwealths" and the like: "socialistic" programs like fire departments and post offices. Also....

IndianKBlue Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - Chomsky Buckley were political thinkers. Unless you think the world IS perfect, they're obviously going to have "complaints". And if you ever read any Chomsky, you'd see he actually has a lot of ideas on how countries can properly broker peace. If anything Buckley's ideas were far less constructive, as his whole modus operatus was limiting government, which may be a nice policy to have, but doesn't exactly promote solutions to real problems.

prince2873 Says:

Oct 21, 2009 - The correct policy, in my opinion is limited federal government. The individual has a microscopic amount of power regarding federal policy, but can have a remarkable amount of input concerning local government.

MajNorberg Says:

Oct 24, 2009 - Your complaint on dissent is old my friend....you're out numbers here...look at the thread numbers.

elmowasser Says:

Oct 27, 2009 - I agree with the most recent comment. Buckley is merely a disingenuous and cunning conversationalist. His interruptions of Chomsky are tiring, as are his snide (and largely successful) comments designed to engage the audience in his effort to paint Chomsky as some kind of buffoon devoid of intellectual integrity or consistency. Buckley's tactics eerily foreshadow the current schtick of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, albeit at a time when being clever wasn't considered such a liability.

chaseacross Says:

Oct 28, 2009 - I fail to see how Buckley's points are refuted. Chomsky's reference to Nazi Germany trying to advance "Christian civilization" is patent nonsense, as is his assertion that colonialism was undertaken as a civilizing mission. Chomsky himself admits that countries covered their self interest with neo-colonial sentimentality. But WWII, the Vietnam War... both were waged with primarily benevolent intent. Both were still gross tragedies, of course, and Vietnam all the more so for its failure.

YTwatcher38 Says:

Oct 28, 2009 - elmow..............5 star comment

bianodias2000 Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - Based on the facts that The Truman Doctrine extended to supporting dictatorship in Chile, Argentina and Brazil (my native country)during the end of 50's/beginning of 60's to supress communism, I feel inclined to desconsider his points, as he lacks this information, and so does all american public. Here ( in South America) there was no regard to democracy , neither an interference from USA military or any military on the atrocities commited by these tyrants, as if they were allies.

bianodias2000 Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - In fact, Buckley was not aware of the South America dictatorship as he was not aware of the Vietnam situation as Chomsky , who had really studied about it.

thomasuras Says:

Nov 2, 2009 - Buckley was a stupid hillbilly

aadejumo Says:

Nov 2, 2009 - stop fuking interrupting d man

forrestcrow Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Chomsky's words here are prophetic concerning the idea of the US's head role in a highly integrated, global system vs. Buckley's shallow interpretation of the US simply inheriting a responsibility to "protect" the world. Both ideas are "true" in the sense that many of the people involved in creating this system were both "interested" and "disinterested" depending on who you study. Whatever the truth was then, in 2009 it's certainly highly connected, privatized "interested' imperialism.

ZiuoxZui Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - William Buckley filleted Noam Chomsky's arguments as only Buckley could do.

killnickleback Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Its always the same with conservative pundits, aggressively control the conversation,simplify complex issues,interupt when someone is making a valid point and excuse state sponsered murder with the idea that there was no fault on their governments part.

YankeeTom63 Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - What does the United Stated Government do when a nation attempts a economic system that the USA does not like?

danben72 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - How interesting this kind of talk. The guy on the left is either a real stupid f$:k or he is only playing devils advocate or he is such a hypocrite Chomsky et al are talking about when describing the dynamics of imperialism. Chomsky rules although probably on a lost case as military force and hypocrites will be able to force their will on the "masses" as they like because the uneducated "masses" will always be unable to withstand the temptations offered by the rulers or simply be overrun!

defenderbass Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - Chomsky never had a chance. Bottom line.

danben72 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - How would you know? You are like Buckley working with a broad brush to make your point that it sounds very educated. In fact it is not! I don't know about your background, but the world is a very complicated place, and therefore solutions don't come by coercion but by freedom which allows creativity. For whatever the topic might be. If you know what I mean?! Think about it!

olivemike81 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - Have you taken a look at the Republican Party lately? Please point to me somebody [and I mean a Republican, not Ron Paul] who doesn't have a "black and white, America is always right" view of the world. Please find one for me. I'll be waiting.

danben72 Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - I am talking about your last sentence in the first comment! And on the "black and white America" I am completely with you! Almost all of those in the political arena, incl. MSM don't have the brains or the boll#cks to differentiate because it is easier to win public support, i.e. disguise people, with stupid generalizations. Take care!

TBlake34 Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - ...until you listen to the debate.

islamandcompassion Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - how idiotic and arrogant the journalist is; I would not think that this guy is fit to be a shepherd because he might loose his mild and animalistic temper with animals as well. This guy think so high of HERself that it is hard to not laugh while listening and watching His body language is hahahahaha amaizingly funny but verey interesting!