>> ^Sagemind:

Too long - make your point and move on...
Upvote made based on first 5 mins only


That's what's called "concision" and it's the reason why Noam Chomsky was never on Nightline.

I guess that ends our argument.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.


Ok let me put it this way. Noam Chomsky is smarter than you and he's right. Go argue with someone who cares.

Yeah, coz Yogi doesn't care about whether Noam Chomsky is right or not.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.



Ok let me put it this way. Noam Chomsky is smarter than you and he's right. Go argue with someone who cares.

Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.


Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.

Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.

I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.

Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.

For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

That was my point. I'm just saying Chomsky should at least get the story right.

BTW, You're Crazy.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Grimm:
Not that it would change Chomsky's opinion about RP...but the story he is using to make a point isn't very accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE

It wouldn't change his view because he's just talking about one instance. There are many MANY more which he could cite. Ron Paul's crazy.

>> ^Grimm:

Not that it would change Chomsky's opinion about RP...but the story he is using to make a point isn't very accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE


It wouldn't change his view because he's just talking about one instance. There are many MANY more which he could cite. Ron Paul's crazy.

If you listen carefully, you can almost hear Noam Chomsky in the crowd

Your video, Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul: He's a nice guy, but..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

>> ^Trancecoach:

So, I posted this video to a Ron Paul supporting friend of mine. Here is his response, written directly to Noam:
"Hi, I saw this and noticed you used an emotional tactic when you referred to the person on life support and Ron Paul's first answer was with Liberty. First, some context of what he was dealing with... Notice what makes the crowd cheer! - http://www.colbertnation.com/th
e-colbert-report-videos/396581/september-13-2011/cnn-tea-party-republican-debate .
"You are a very well read man (there are whole sections of you in bookstores, sorry, havn't read any) so I'm surprised you havn't read his overview, I've explained it for "Liberals" here: http://case4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/10/overview-of-ron-pa
uls-plan-to-restore.html (I know economics, please explain to me how this won't work? Keep in mind Obama has already started condensing 6 departments into 1) .
"Also, if you have been following politics then you may have noticed that the only person that the "Libertarians" have been able to work with is Senator Bernie Sanders (who has been fighting on the front lines for lot longer than you) and he has a team of economists to help us with the FED - Read about Sen. Sanders' team of economists here: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=de4c73fb-131c-4a25
-b83e-4604eaefcebb ."


Your Ron Paul supporting friend is a nice guy, but...

There are two major logical flaws in this guys logic.

1. At the end of a rant against republicans and democrats, he endorses a republican.
2. He gives a list of politicians who have failed to live up to their campaign promises, and then endorses Ron Paul, without considering that he too would also fail to live up to his campaign promises, because he would be subject to the same political realities (congress, the media, big money, etc. all have power to subvert the president) that all of the previous presidents had to face.

I don't believe Ron Paul to be the saint he's made out to be. He's another rich, conservative, white career politician pushing his own questionable agenda on a whole lot of unsuspecting citizens.

More reading:

http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/transcript-of-noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul/

http://videosift.com/video/Why-so-many-people-are-endorsing-Ron-Paul-for-President?loadcomm=1#comment-1380333

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/13/1054389/-Of-Broken-Clocks,-Presidential-Candidates-and-the-Confusion-of-Certain-White-Liberals

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

>> ^Yogi:


Have you seen all my comments on this site? No you haven't. I used to provide very long explanatory comments. I've given that up because frankly it doesn't matter no one reads them.
I don't sit an watch videos...Noam Chomsky is one of the most respected intellectuals on the planet and not a conspiracy theorist. I had over 30 of his books that I recently gave away to the Library of the OWS movement.
I've seen enough to permanantly dismiss you as a poser with self-delusions of grandeur. The length of your "explanatory comments" seem to be directly proportional to the amount of foot in your mouth, and, when confronted with disagreement, you have a tendency to profess bona fides that said comments clearly demonstrate you don't possess. Gave 30 Chomsky books to OWS? Yeah... ok, doctor.