Can’t believe the WSJ would have the balls to print this. But then again they covered up for the East Timor genocide so I guess this is right up there alley.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can’t believe the WSJ would have the balls to print this. But then again they covered up for the East Timor genocide so I guess this is right up there alley.
When did WSJ “cover up” the genocide in East Timor? Please provide a link to a WSJ article. Not some unsubstantiated assertion by Chomsky, Pravda or Howard Zinn.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When did WSJ “cover up” the genocide in East Timor? Please provide a link to a WSJ article. Not some unsubstantiated assertion by Chomsky, Pravda or Howard Zinn.[/quote]
Can’t show you stories they did not print. Why don’t you find stories about the atrocities that WSJ reported on during that time? And by the way Chompsky cites all his assertions.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When did WSJ “cover up” the genocide in East Timor? Please provide a link to a WSJ article. Not some unsubstantiated assertion by Chomsky, Pravda or Howard Zinn.[/quote]
Can’t show you stories they did not print. Why don’t you find stories about the atrocities that WSJ reported on during that time? And by the way Chompsky cites all his assertions.
[/quote]
Yeah but check his sources.
Hard to find full articles from WSJ from the early 90’s, especially without paying membership - you know capitalist dogs and so forth. But here’s a list of numerous articles from WSJ about the genocide in East TImor from the early 90’s:
http://oceanpark.com/notes/books/genocide_in_paradise/genocide_20.htm
Pretty tiny country BTW with a lot else going on in the world. I’m just SURE it was a conspiracy of money men though. Absolutely sure. I’d be willing to bet half this week’s food stamps on that!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When did WSJ “cover up” the genocide in East Timor? Please provide a link to a WSJ article. Not some unsubstantiated assertion by Chomsky, Pravda or Howard Zinn.[/quote]
Can’t show you stories they did not print. Why don’t you find stories about the atrocities that WSJ reported on during that time? And by the way Chompsky cites all his assertions.
[/quote]
Yeah but check his sources.
Hard to find full articles from WSJ from the early 90’s, especially without paying membership - you know capitalist dogs and so forth. But here’s a list of numerous articles from WSJ about the genocide in East TImor from the early 90’s:
http://oceanpark.com/notes/books/genocide_in_paradise/genocide_20.htm
Pretty tiny country BTW with a lot else going on in the world. I’m just SURE it was a conspiracy of money men though. Absolutely sure. I’d be willing to bet half this week’s food stamps on that![/quote]
Even if they did report on the genocide in the 90’s the major damage has already been done. Where is the reporting during the height of the genocide in the 70’s? Why were their reportings on the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia but not on the East Timor genocide and they happened during the same time frame?
What is wrong with the sources Chomsky cites?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Even if they did report on the genocide in the 90’s the major damage has already been done.
[/quote]
Wuh? You suggesting the journalists should have kitted up and took on the militias themselves? I don’t even understand your latest contortion.
Ask Chomsky. He spent the 70’s playing down Pol Pot’s atrocities and trying to find ways to blame America…er America caused a famine. The famine brought about Pol Pot. Cambodian genocide = America’s fault.
Google each source. You’ll find words and phrases like “thoroughly discredited” and “now known to have been taking money from the KGB” etc.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can’t believe the WSJ would have the balls to print this. But then again they covered up for the East Timor genocide so I guess this is right up there alley.
You know what your problem is Zep? You WANT these people, i.e. conservatives to be the evil horrible folks that you have in your mind built them up to be. The problem is that you cannot support that shit with facts. “Oh look what the WSJ said!” Really? In light of the piece in context, the author was dealing with bad, horrible, or worse. So the premise, in context, is that if you are going to get stuck with a nutjob, violent dictator, at least have one that will allow the economy to grow. Now whether or not you agree with that is fine, but he wasn’t insisting that they need a homicidal maniac to keep the place in check.
It’s fine to be biased, just be biased with facts instead of all this propaganda you read. What’s the point of ‘Hurray for our side!’ if it’s not based on fact, or very loosely based on fact?
When I post links and stuff, I try to make an effort to make sure the links are from more credible, less biased sources. You can’t always simply because not everything is reported by everybody. But when every single source you post is some radical left-wing whack job garbage, nobody is going to, for even a second, consider your point, or point of view.
When you start cross-referencing your sources, you often find you had less of a point then you thought you did. It’s far less embarrassing finding out on your own than having other point it out to you.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When did WSJ “cover up” the genocide in East Timor? Please provide a link to a WSJ article. Not some unsubstantiated assertion by Chomsky, Pravda or Howard Zinn.[/quote]
Can’t show you stories they did not print. Why don’t you find stories about the atrocities that WSJ reported on during that time? And by the way Chompsky cites all his assertions.
[/quote]
Yeah but check his sources.
Hard to find full articles from WSJ from the early 90’s, especially without paying membership - you know capitalist dogs and so forth. But here’s a list of numerous articles from WSJ about the genocide in East TImor from the early 90’s:
http://oceanpark.com/notes/books/genocide_in_paradise/genocide_20.htm
Pretty tiny country BTW with a lot else going on in the world. I’m just SURE it was a conspiracy of money men though. Absolutely sure. I’d be willing to bet half this week’s food stamps on that![/quote]
Even if they did report on the genocide in the 90’s the major damage has already been done. Where is the reporting during the height of the genocide in the 70’s? Why were their reportings on the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia but not on the East Timor genocide and they happened during the same time frame?
What is wrong with the sources Chomsky cites?
[/quote]
It’s not his sources, it’s his selective and rather poor use of them to make things appear in a way that is not true.
So let’s take drunk driving for example. 33% of road fatalities in 2011 were the result of being impaired by alcohol. You know what that means? 66% were fucking sober, so whose more dangerous sober or drunk drivers? According to these stats, sober drivers are the biggest threat.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Even if they did report on the genocide in the 90’s the major damage has already been done.
[/quote]
Wuh? You suggesting the journalists should have kitted up and took on the militias themselves? I don’t even understand your latest contortion.
Ask Chomsky. He spent the 70’s playing down Pol Pot’s atrocities and trying to find ways to blame America…er America caused a famine. The famine brought about Pol Pot. Cambodian genocide = America’s fault.
Google each source. You’ll find words and phrases like I completely agree that there’s nothing wrong with paying people a “living wage.” I and “now known to have been taking money from the KGB” etc.[/quote]
Who has said they are thouroughly discredited"?
Who has beaten Chompsky in a debate? I saw him totally destroy William F. Buckley Jr. on a Firing Line debate.
Pol Pot’s atrocities were in the corporate newspapers regularly the East Timor massacre was not, why? This is what Chompsky and others have brought to light.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can’t believe the WSJ would have the balls to print this. But then again they covered up for the East Timor genocide so I guess this is right up there alley.
You know what your problem is Zep? You WANT these people, i.e. conservatives to be the evil horrible folks that you have in your mind built them up to be. The problem is that you cannot support that shit with facts. “Oh look what the WSJ said!” Really? In light of the piece in context, the author was dealing with bad, horrible, or worse. So the premise, in context, is that if you are going to get stuck with a nutjob, violent dictator, at least have one that will allow the economy to grow. Now whether or not you agree with that is fine, but he wasn’t insisting that they need a homicidal maniac to keep the place in check.
It’s fine to be biased, just be biased with facts instead of all this propaganda you read. What’s the point of ‘Hurray for our side!’ if it’s not based on fact, or very loosely based on fact?
When I post links and stuff, I try to make an effort to make sure the links are from more credible, less biased sources. You can’t always simply because not everything is reported by everybody. But when every single source you post is some radical left-wing whack job garbage, nobody is going to, for even a second, consider your point, or point of view.
When you start cross-referencing your sources, you often find you had less of a point then you thought you did. It’s far less embarrassing finding out on your own than having other point it out to you. [/quote]
Right-wingers are not evil or stupid per say but they are more ideologues. They want the world to fit to their view so bad that they will overlook evidence to do so.
Where do you go to source stuff? Is it free of ideolgy? Your definition of left-wing whack job is anyone who comes to an opposite conclusion than your ideology even if they use evidence. It has to be called names to diffuse the real issue which is truth and evidence and the conclusion of such. For instance “free-market healthcare has to be better because it is the free-market” nevermind the dismal results. Cutting taxes on the rich and not having multi-national corporations pay taxes has to be good for the economy because they are the “job creators” and they will use the extra money to invest and create more jobs. Even though time and time again this is not proven. For anyone to bring up evidence that draws the opposite for a conclusion has to be a “nutjob”. The free-market faantasy must stay alive even if it is completely wrong in some instances. The right is blinded by ideology and uses it to try and intellectually justify greed.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can’t believe the WSJ would have the balls to print this. But then again they covered up for the East Timor genocide so I guess this is right up there alley.
You know what your problem is Zep? You WANT these people, i.e. conservatives to be the evil horrible folks that you have in your mind built them up to be. The problem is that you cannot support that shit with facts. “Oh look what the WSJ said!” Really? In light of the piece in context, the author was dealing with bad, horrible, or worse. So the premise, in context, is that if you are going to get stuck with a nutjob, violent dictator, at least have one that will allow the economy to grow. Now whether or not you agree with that is fine, but he wasn’t insisting that they need a homicidal maniac to keep the place in check.
It’s fine to be biased, just be biased with facts instead of all this propaganda you read. What’s the point of ‘Hurray for our side!’ if it’s not based on fact, or very loosely based on fact?
When I post links and stuff, I try to make an effort to make sure the links are from more credible, less biased sources. You can’t always simply because not everything is reported by everybody. But when every single source you post is some radical left-wing whack job garbage, nobody is going to, for even a second, consider your point, or point of view.
When you start cross-referencing your sources, you often find you had less of a point then you thought you did. It’s far less embarrassing finding out on your own than having other point it out to you. [/quote]
Right-wingers are not evil or stupid per say but they are more ideologues. They want the world to fit to their view so bad that they will overlook evidence to do so.
Where do you go to source stuff? Is it free of ideolgy? Your definition of left-wing whack job is anyone who comes to an opposite conclusion than your ideology even if they use evidence. It has to be called names to diffuse the real issue which is truth and evidence and the conclusion of such. For instance “free-market healthcare has to be better because it is the free-market” nevermind the dismal results. Cutting taxes on the rich and not having multi-national corporations pay taxes has to be good for the economy because they are the “job creators” and they will use the extra money to invest and create more jobs. Even though time and time again this is not proven. For anyone to bring up evidence that draws the opposite for a conclusion has to be a “nutjob”. The free-market faantasy must stay alive even if it is completely wrong in some instances. The right is blinded by ideology and uses it to try and intellectually justify greed. [/quote]
I’d say you are blinded more by ideology than what you claim than conservatives. When I apply my conservative values in the real world, they magically work!
Crazy ideas like the more money I have, the more I can contribute to the economy, that family is the most important core social unit, that abortion is murder, that charity is best when it comes from the heart not the government, that I can take care of myself, I don’t need somebody telling me what to do, etc. Those are just some of the extreme nutty things I believe.
I get my sources from many places, right, left, center and everywhere in between. If you have a right and a left leaning source agreeing on facts, that’s your highest probability those facts are correct, even if they interpret those facts differently.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Who has beaten Chompsky in a debate? [/quote]
Chompsky (who taught at my school, and I think is still there) is very brilliant when talking about languages, which is his area of expertise.
Outside of that, he is a very eloquent idiot who disguises tired bullshit with ornate phrasing.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Who has beaten Chompsky in a debate? [/quote]
Chompsky (who taught at my school, and I think is still there) is very brilliant when talking about languages, which is his area of expertise.
Outside of that, he is a very eloquent idiot who disguises tired bullshit with ornate phrasing.
[/quote]
I used to have a Chompsky book on tape on linguistics and it was fascinating. If I recall it was about how the the human mind is actually hard-wired for grammatical thought and the way children successfully learn their native language in so little time suggested, for him, that the structures of language were innate, rather than acquired, and that all languages shared common underlying rules.
It’s the truth, some nations need a tyrant.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Who has beaten Chompsky in a debate? [/quote]
Chompsky (who taught at my school, and I think is still there) is very brilliant when talking about languages, which is his area of expertise.
Outside of that, he is a very eloquent idiot who disguises tired bullshit with ornate phrasing.
[/quote]
He is still employed at MIT from what I understand. An eloquent idiot. Who has made him look so? I have a feeling these are your personal feelings because his conclusions are in stark contrast to your beliefs.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can’t believe the WSJ would have the balls to print this. But then again they covered up for the East Timor genocide so I guess this is right up there alley.
You know what your problem is Zep? You WANT these people, i.e. conservatives to be the evil horrible folks that you have in your mind built them up to be. The problem is that you cannot support that shit with facts. “Oh look what the WSJ said!” Really? In light of the piece in context, the author was dealing with bad, horrible, or worse. So the premise, in context, is that if you are going to get stuck with a nutjob, violent dictator, at least have one that will allow the economy to grow. Now whether or not you agree with that is fine, but he wasn’t insisting that they need a homicidal maniac to keep the place in check.
It’s fine to be biased, just be biased with facts instead of all this propaganda you read. What’s the point of ‘Hurray for our side!’ if it’s not based on fact, or very loosely based on fact?
When I post links and stuff, I try to make an effort to make sure the links are from more credible, less biased sources. You can’t always simply because not everything is reported by everybody. But when every single source you post is some radical left-wing whack job garbage, nobody is going to, for even a second, consider your point, or point of view.
When you start cross-referencing your sources, you often find you had less of a point then you thought you did. It’s far less embarrassing finding out on your own than having other point it out to you. [/quote]
Right-wingers are not evil or stupid per say but they are more ideologues. They want the world to fit to their view so bad that they will overlook evidence to do so.
Where do you go to source stuff? Is it free of ideolgy? Your definition of left-wing whack job is anyone who comes to an opposite conclusion than your ideology even if they use evidence. It has to be called names to diffuse the real issue which is truth and evidence and the conclusion of such. For instance “free-market healthcare has to be better because it is the free-market” nevermind the dismal results. Cutting taxes on the rich and not having multi-national corporations pay taxes has to be good for the economy because they are the “job creators” and they will use the extra money to invest and create more jobs. Even though time and time again this is not proven. For anyone to bring up evidence that draws the opposite for a conclusion has to be a “nutjob”. The free-market faantasy must stay alive even if it is completely wrong in some instances. The right is blinded by ideology and uses it to try and intellectually justify greed. [/quote]
I’d say you are blinded more by ideology than what you claim than conservatives. When I apply my conservative values in the real world, they magically work!
Crazy ideas like the more money I have, the more I can contribute to the economy, that family is the most important core social unit, that abortion is murder, that charity is best when it comes from the heart not the government, that I can take care of myself, I don’t need somebody telling me what to do, etc. Those are just some of the extreme nutty things I believe.
I get my sources from many places, right, left, center and everywhere in between. If you have a right and a left leaning source agreeing on facts, that’s your highest probability those facts are correct, even if they interpret those facts differently.[/quote]
Conservative values such as? Wow, it seems as though your values have taken an extreme hit. More money? Very few people in the U.S. have more money as time goes on as corporations send the jobs overseas for cheaper labor to line the pockets of the owners. Who cares if families are devastated in the process, maximizing profits is the be all end all. Who cares if the middle class can buy the products which are produced as long as someone else can. Now large corporations don’t need the public as workers or consumers. Wow, what magic!
Right and left agreeing depends on who you are talking about as they mostly work for large corporations. So big deal we have a consensus of the elite.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Who has beaten Chompsky in a debate? [/quote]
Chompsky (who taught at my school, and I think is still there) is very brilliant when talking about languages, which is his area of expertise.
Outside of that, he is a very eloquent idiot who disguises tired bullshit with ornate phrasing.
[/quote]
He is still employed at MIT from what I understand. An eloquent idiot. Who has made him look so? I have a feeling these are your personal feelings because his conclusions are in stark contrast to your beliefs.
[/quote]
Funny that MIT is the largest Uni involved in weapons production for the US military. They pay his wages. Anyway, what Chumpsky says goes even if it doesn’t go if you know what I mean.
EDIT: Meant weapons research and technology.
1.Chomsky denied the Cambodian Genocide, claiming that the killing had been inflated “by a factor of 100.”[18][19] He further asserted that the (in reality) 2 to 3 million Cambodians slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1978 were morally comparable to Nazi collaborators during WW2, and that Pol Pot’s Cambodia was “comparable to France after liberation [from the Nazis].”
2.Chomsky recently (1995) claimed, in the wake of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the death toll in Cambodia may have been inflated “by a factor of a thousand.”[21] Since he was responding to an estimate of two million dead, his words would imply that the real toll was on the order of two thousand.
3.Chomsky has claimed that Pearl Harbor saved millions of lives and that America and Britain used Nazi armies to attack the Soviet Union and prolong the Holocaust.
8.Chomsky openly claimed in 1977 that Pol Pot had saved up to one million lives.[38] He did so by citing a Ford administration prediction that the Khmer Rouge would likely kill more than one million people, and then falsely restating it to imply that more than one million Cambodians would starve to death if US aid was cut off.
9.Chomsky has praised Imperial Japan for allegedly “saving maybe tens of millions of lives.”