Quake3World

Okay, I realize this is worldnetdaily, so I'm curious. Is this just a smear against "radical" liberals, or do they have proof that Moore owns over 2000 shares of stock in Halliburton?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=47174

It's in a book, so it must be true.

As much as I dislike some of his methods, something does smell funny about it to me. But if it is true, I hope it gets splashed on every publication in the country for weeks for being such a hypocrite.

could well be true, but some of the highlights from that book look like they're scraping the barrel. can't be much beyond filler in there.

he don't own any halliburton stock...i call bs...

i think this gives a flavour of the true value of this book:

Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.

fact a: chomsky has never called america a police state. in fact he's on record as calling it the freest country on earth

fact b: chomsky "made his reputation" by being an excellent critic and analyst of (mostly) US policy, not thru dimwitted name-calling

fact c: MIT has in the past been heavily funded by the pentagon for research purposes (possibly only certain departments, which it's unlikely would include linguistics). i believe the extent of that funding has decreased over the years. if chomsky were genuinely being "subsidized" by the "military", wouldn't they have cut off his "subsidy" years ago in light of what he's written and said?

fact c: i have no idea if chomsky's pentagon quote is accurate

dunno about moore/halliburton. sounds a bit dubious, but then my faith in human decency doesn't rest on the integrity of michael moore, so...whatever...

ffs check out this other piece

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=47166

Many Europeans have long discarded belief in God and in fact believe more deeply in ghosts than in a deity.

A new poll finds two-thirds of Britons said they believe in the existence of ghosts and spirits, but only 55 percent said they believe in the existence of God.

Meanwhile, 26 percent believe in UFOs, 19 percent in reincarnation and 4 percent in the Loch Ness Monster, Ananova reported.

pot kettle

funny how some morons think chomsky is a govt shill or jew hater or whatever else...

seremtan wrote:i think this gives a flavour of the true value of this book:

Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.

fact a: chomsky has never called america a police state. in fact he's on record as calling it the freest country on earth

Whoa! What planet do you live on? Noam Chomsky frequently calls the US a police state for large parts of the population and even worse a terrorist country all led by a corrupt government.

His own phrasing (context: black teenagers in slums) " it wouldn't be false to say it's a police state"

i.e. "Noam Chomsky: First of all I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase 'War on Terror'. There can't be a War on Terror. It's a logical impossibility. The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world."

In case you are still a doubter, here is a link directly from his own website:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021228.htm

ROFL!!!!!

Just do a google search - you will find thousands of quotes

OK, aside from that being a very minor point in the whole scheme of this debate, you're pretending like terrorist state and police state means the same thing.

Which it's strikingly obvious, it doesn't.

Foo wrote:OK, aside from that being a very minor point in the whole scheme of this debate, you're pretending like terrorist state and police state means the same thing.

Which it's strikingly obvious, it doesn't.

Noam Chomsky: "for black teenagers in urban slums, it wouldn't be false to say it's a police state. Simply look at the record of criminalization/incarceration since the latest effort to impose a third world model took off about 20 years ago."

Actually, I was suggesting that its trivial to find examples of Chomsky saying "police state" and to me a "terrorist state" is worse than being called a "police state".

Regardless, this is of course not the main point of the thread but it does show that some of Seremtan's objections are wrong. For you, Foo, I could simply the reasoning since it seems you really don't grasp it.

no hax no

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:no hax no

LOL.

Thx.

hmm I must explain it to you?

the author claims chomsky has called the U.S. a police state which is completely inaccurate. terror state does not equal a police state.

you do realize the importance of being accurate don't you?

do you dispute the U.S. is a purveyor of terror?

hax103 wrote:

seremtan wrote:i think this gives a flavour of the true value of this book:

Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.

fact a: chomsky has never called america a police state. in fact he's on record as calling it the freest country on earth

Whoa! What planet do you live on? Noam Chomsky frequently calles the US a police state, a terrorist country all led by a corrupt government.

i.e. "Noam Chomsky: First of all I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase 'War on Terror'. There can't be a War on Terror. It's a logical impossibility. The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world."

In case you are still a doubter, here is a link directly from his own website:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021228.htm

ROFL!!!!!

In the distant past, he may have thought of the US as a free country but not in the 21st century.

Just do a google search - you will find thousands of quotes

i live on the planet where people have actually read chomsky and don't just regurgitate the views of his critics as fact. like foo said, you're confusing police state with terrorist state. the US was in fact condemned for state terrorism by the world court in 1986 over training and funding the contras in nicaragua, as chomsky mentions in the article you linked to:

The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world. The guys who are in charge right now were all condemned for terrorism by the World Court. They would have been condemned by the U.N. Security Council except they vetoed the resolution, with Britain abstaining of course.

as for corruption, well first off i don't think corruption by individual members of any government is a terribly major deal IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS (note emphasis please), but even here you can make a decent case. ever hear of valerie plame? of course you have - you have because dick cheney released her name (a classified piece of info) to the press to 'get back' at her husband for rubbishing the niger uranium claim he was desperate to have pan out. just one example.

hax103 wrote:Noam Chomsky: "for black teenagers in urban slums, it wouldn't be false to say it's a police state. Simply look at the record of criminalization/incarceration since the latest effort to impose a third world model took off about 20 years ago."

Actually, I was suggesting that its trivial to find examples of Chomsky saying "police state" and to me a "terrorist state" is worse than being called a "police state".

hardly trivial since the best you can manage is him speaking of "black teenagers in urban slums" (i.e. not the whole country).

and finally, who cares if it's worse for you to say 'terrorist state' than 'police state'? what matters are the facts. if a nation's government routinely carries out actions which fit even its own definition of terrorism then the moniker 'terrorist state' is appropriate. if you don't like that, then do something about it rather than complaining about the use of the term

Michael Moore? Halliburton?! Maybe I'm just too literal minded but I'd bet real money that his stock portfolio is dominated by holdings in food service companies (i.e., Bisquick, Frito Lay, Oscar Mayer).

Hannibal wrote:Michael Moore? Halliburton?! Maybe I'm just too literal minded but I'd bet real money that his stock portfolio is dominated by holdings in food service companies (i.e., Bisquick, Frito Lay, Oscar Mayer).

lol

actually it wouldn't surprise me if he does own stock. he probably wants a voice at the general meeting...a la general motors and Roger & Me.

oh and anyone who heard about the Guardian hatchet job on Chomsky might want to read this...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... temID=9110

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: lol

I suggested Bisquick because I know of his fondness for pancakes. He sat next to me at an eatery up here (Upper Pennisula) and chowed the fuck down. Very friendly guy in person.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Hannibal wrote:Michael Moore? Halliburton?! Maybe I'm just too literal minded but I'd bet real money that his stock portfolio is dominated by holdings in food service companies (i.e., Bisquick, Frito Lay, Oscar Mayer).

lol

actually it wouldn't surprise me if he does own stock. he probably wants a voice at the general meeting...a la general motors and Roger & Me.

he *is* a member of the NRA, as it happens

If he does own Halliburton stock i find it more a sign of cynicism than hypocracy to be honest.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:oh and anyone who heard about the Guardian hatchet job on Chomsky might want to read this...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... temID=9110

also this

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/0511 ... ardian.php

oh and this may be interesting too

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... temID=9136

The readers' editor has considered a number of complaints from Noam Chomsky concerning an interview with him by Emma Brockes published in G2, the second section of the Guardian, on October 31. He has found in favour of Professor Chomsky on three significant complaints.

guardiownT