Do teabaggers even know who Noam Chomsky is?
all this talk about how honest the politician Ron Paul is and no mention of his rival coined "the most important intellectual alive" by the New York Times. Their ideology is quite similar in regards to foreign policy and they both identify with Libertarian ideology; I believe Chomsky is much more informed judging by the credibility of his sources compared to Paul (they are even the same age). Problem for teabaggers: Noam Chomsky is left libertarian and wants to redistribute the wealth in a fashion far removed from Obama's vision and nearly the polar opposite of Paul's.
Update:Isn't that the problem?
Update 3:He also was the first to discover that human language is not picked up through imitation and invented the theory of Universal Grammar in that our brain comes equipped with an innate sense of grammatical structure or a "language acquisition device". There was even a research chimp named "Nim Chimpsky" in his admiration that was able to achieve rudimentary elements of American Sign Language.
Update 5:I have seen your posts and you are a teabagger; maybe you could look at some of Chomsky's theories on language change and see that this word refers to people like you more commonly than your perverted definition. It is not in the dictionary yet and I am betting that it gets associated more so with you guys when it reaches the OED (especially when it is the preferred term for college professors)
Comments
Most teabaggers have probably never heard of him. That's a shame. He's a brilliant man. If some of these idiots would actually read Chomsky's work, or that of others such as Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States), they might understand who their real enemies are.
Funny, I didn't find him convincing & found his opponents much more effective. Maybe because I'm not a die hard fan of nonsense views on politics & false arguments. It's a well known fact in arguing --- if you aren't trying for real truth, & only aiming to "win" & make others look foolish, you can appear more effective. Truth & taking total views into account & aiming for solutions, can be a real obstacle in an argument. Pay close attention to dictators who were voted in originally... it's very much their style (this aim to win, ignore the truth). It's always easy to "put holes" in arguments... it's much harder to have real ideas & solutions. That's why it's a different game to campaign for office, than to run the office. It's why Chomsky manipulates well, but anyone skilled or intelligent is quickly put off by his arguments... unless they have an axe to grind with Israel or whatever & don't fact check or care about reality. =================== Chomsky - isn't so brillant & many feel that way. He's self congratulatory - a different concept. So Chomsky runs off people (MIT) -- that's generally the sign of an egomanic who's threatened because his work isn't all there... and needs to have control instead. Any one in math research will tell you, the greatly skilled folks have no trouble working together - even if they see things differently. It's only the facade ones that play games. Scaerdrys I'm a math graduate -- which is why I can see through the manipulation & lack of logic in Chomsky's comments. Including even in linguistics. When you have to use "large" words & overly complicate explanations, you're blowing smoke screens every time.... which was obvious when I persisted through to the core.
No, I am not a teabagger; I would never do such a thing to my girlfriend.
Yes, I do know who Noam Chomsky is. I have seen his debates with William F. Buckley, as well as interviews of Free Speech TV. Noam is undoubtedly very intelligent, but is ideologically focused and not realistic. His view that speech codes are not a violation of free speech is laughable. Chomsky is all for freedom of expression as long as he agrees with it. Lately, Chomsky has waffled on 9/11 conspiracies; first he said that such theories were had no basis in reality, in the past few years he has been cited as saying that a conspiracy was probable.
BTW. I do not much care for Ron Paul either. He has claimed to be a strict constructionist to the Constitution while promising to do things as president that would be beyond his constitutional power.
PS. I have studied under several followers of Chomsky, they are ideologues not intellectuals.
>So you use Chomsky's linguist theories (after all, that is what he is and not an expert on history and politics) to label people.
Yes, my posts are free for everybody to see. I do not hide them as so many liberals on this do. But I have never been part of a Tea Party movement. And the phrase "teabagger" has been used by assholes like Keith Olbermann as an insult to those people who do take part in those rallies. They meant to connect it to the "perverted" use of the word. A highly intelligent linguist like Chomsky and those who study under him should know that.
>Though Chomsky is indeed a linguist, what does language have to do with why he changed his view on 9/11 conspiracies and his view of speech codes? The reason has nothing to do with linguistics or intellectual pursuits; Chomsky survives in his "ivory tower" by avoiding pissing certain people off. He continued to say that 9/11 was not an inside job, he might lose the young "it's all Bush's fault" crowd that view "Loose Change" as gospel. If he stated that speech codes at colleges and universities were a violation of freedom of expression, then he would alienate the politicallly correct crowd of faculty and students. Chomsky makes sure that his writings and speeches hit the right cord with his audience. That is why Chomsky, like other university intellectuals, talks of wealth redistribution: it is popular to take from others as long you can keep what you got. As we are both educators, why doesn't Chomsky give me part of his salary so that we are even on the pay scale? Doesn't that sound fair?
I
The first answer is incorrect, so I doubt he seriously knows who Noam Chomsky is.Chomsky is not a communist. He is a realist.
I know who Noam Chomsky is and he is an actual communist.
Noam Chomsky is a supporter of anarcho-communism, he even said it in his books.... but you probably haven't read any.
Yes....isn't he the guy who made his fortune feeding left wing liberals a bunch of crap and marketing it via the ultimate capitalist ways? In other words, he was as big of a hypocrite as Michael Moore.
When we talk about libertarians in this country we usually are referring to right wing libertarians.
i am not a tea bagger as you say but i know who he is! and i do not like him, he turns his back on his own people and his own nation and people take his word as gospel, i am more concerned with this man and his morality and honor and i do not really care for his opinion!
Do you even know what a "teabagger" is? if so, why do you care what or who sexual perverts know?
all they know about chomsky is what their pundits tell them to know