Noam Chomsky - is he the greatest?

This guy seems to hold all the right ideas and truth - no wonder the Cons hate him!

Surely, if more people like him were in power, the world would be a better place?

 

*scratches balls

 

I just wish he were more interesting to listen to. Brilliant man but excruciating to listen to at length because he drones on almost in a monotone with little in the way of emotion, inflection or expression. He knows his history, sees the big picture, and realizes we're in a self-consuming system. Not sure about being the greatest since that seems quite subjective, but the guy is without question highly intelligent and willing to speak his mind.

 

Personally, I like Krauthammer

 

No idea as to his contributions to linguistics, which is his field, and the -only- field in which he deserves any attention. Politically, he's a thoroughly dishonest nonevent. He babbles out a near incoherent, thinly-veiled anti Americanism endlessly, orally and in print, hides behind fabricated, meaningless labels that clearly translate into "just another wackadoo, self-important radical lefist academic." Nothing special there at all in a sea of them.

 

Seems that way to someone who worships Fidel Castro.

 

Chomsky is one of the greats. Makes sense that a linguist would be into freedom of expression. Some people think he's anti-American, but that's just 'cause they think everyone that disagrees with themselves is being anti-American, 'cause in their own minds, they're America and the rest of us are not.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

 

He's a wonderful con man, much like Ralph Nader, who dotes on having adolescent admirers to boost his ego. No wonder liberals love him.

 

As a linguist, yes he is arguably.

As a political theorists, not particularly. He fails in to recognize the inherent contradictions within his own political philosophy.

 

Listen to his older lectures, he had quite a bit more energy in his younger age.

 

I can't help but notice that the people that aren't fans of Chomsky haven't pointed out what he's said that they disagree with. Just throwing insults. Which is fine, throwing insults is fun, but if that's all you do it indicates a serious gap in the 'meaningful' portion of your argument.

"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

 

Chomsky has been thoroughly discredited on almost all of his political philosophies, the only reason anyone still know who he is is because of the fact that liberal academics consider him own of their own so constantly talk about him and assign him as research work. If not for that nobody would know his name.

That being said, his work in linguistics is legendary but he should stick to that. His field is not politics.

 

Oh, you didn't read OP, did you? Offers no substance or specific ideas of Chomsky's at all for discussion or debate, NONE, nor do any of his admirers in any other posts to this thread, nor have you. Yet somehow detractors are held to a different, higher standard? Hypocrite much?

To my recollection, he says and writes 90% of those types of things when Republicans are in control of the government. Coincidence?

He's a hoary old irrelevant "plain ordinary socialist" dressed in semantically contorted claptrap, pandering agelessly to sophomores and sophomoric minds.

 

And, I can't help but noticing the acolytes fighting to kiss his ass don't say why, do they? It's just, isn't he wonderful.\

Example:
""Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky
Isn't that deep?
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the American left."--Me.
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the Chomsky acolytes." --Me
Equally deep, right?

 

He is actually more anarchist then socialist, at least he claims to be, but what is funny is that he actually has no idea what an anarchist is. He believes anarchy is a form of government.

lol

 

(My bold)

He always lays out his reasoning, & puts up footnotes & sources (in his written stuff, @ least). So it's possible to check his sources, if you want to. Something that the folks on the Right tend not to do, whether it's a written piece or not.

Yah, I think Chomsky's often on the right side of history - & he's not fond of corporate mass media.

Yes, I like Krauthammer's writing - I'm not that fond of his political positions, but he's a gifted writer.

Would Chomsky himself want to be in power? I don't think so - I don't remember him talking about it. But it seems to me that it's much easier to speak truth if you don't have any temporal power - the temptation, I think, would be to fix everything that needs fixing. An endless job, IMO. & an Rx for absolute misery, on the part of the rulers & the ruled.

 

He's a great linguist, but beyond that, he's a crank.

 

I think Chomsky is right about most things, but he's made some mistakes in his assumptions regarding foreign policy.

I agree with his notion that America should get less involved in the world, but he seems somewhat naive or apologist toward many of our rival powers.

 

Well, this is what the world would look like if more people like him were in power:



No thanks, comrade...

 

Well, his statement is more accurate than yours, for one thing.

Do you disagree with his statement?

Or some other statement?

 

He's so "great" that I don't know him ...

 

I think Chomsky is good at recognizing problems and has the cajones to call them out but I disagree with a large portion of his proposed solutions.

 

He's probably the #1 living intellectual; however, he's not liked because he disagrees with a lot of people on the right and left. For example, he was critical of the left's attacks on the tea party. It's important to note that he didn't support the policies of the tea party; instead, he understood the situation. People like Palin are opportunist who are cashing in right now and will ultimately leave those people on their backs. It kind of goes back to Leibniz. Just because people are having trouble explaining their problems doesn't mean that they don't have problems to explain.

 

He was critical of the left's attacks on the Tea Party in a condescending, patronizing way. Probably an inside joke to cackle about while sitting around with crusty old irrelevant "revolutionaries" smoking pipes, mentally masturbating each other, and lamenting the good old days when they could wear their Mao hats in the open without getting loogies spit on them.

 

those two guys would make great presidents of the US or some Euro nation IMO