search results matching tag: noam chomsky
» channel: nordic
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (191) | Sift Talk (3) | Blogs (24) | Comments (332) |
Videos (191) | Sift Talk (3) | Blogs (24) | Comments (332) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Obama worse than Bush
>> ^bcglorf:
Also I have an extensive knowledge in this subject,
Bull.
Watching a bunch of conspiracy theory videos that talk about history does NOT give one an extensive knowledge in a subject. The depths of the ignorance of the subject in your comments and your abject refusal to back up even the most basic of statements makes the large gap between what you know and what you think know very clear.
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.
Obama worse than Bush
Here is -- or used to be -- the entire interview: link.
messenger
(Member Profile)
fixed!
In reply to this comment by messenger:
*dead ("This video is private")
How Freedom Became Tyranny (Politics Talk Post)
analogy is too simple.
you, DFT, are complex. You're trying to worship the idea of freedom, but you are most likely anti-libertarian in every respect.
Anarchism. like this video: http://videosift.com/video/noam-chomsky-on-capitalism-and-anarchism
I really don't understand Anarchism, but I do know that an Anarchist wouldn't be caught dead in bed with a libertarian.
from wikipedia
I still don't understand it at all.
Am I on the right track?
Christopher Hitchens on North Korea
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.
No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.
And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.
Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!
Sorry after you said Noam Chomskys argument was destroyed I stopped considering you as someone who knows anything about anything. Fuck off.
Well said.
Christopher Hitchens on North Korea
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.
No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.
And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.
Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!
Sorry after you said Noam Chomskys argument was destroyed I stopped considering you as someone who knows anything about anything. Fuck off.
Christopher Hitchens on North Korea
>> ^Yogi:
I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.
No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.
And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.
Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!
Christopher Hitchens on North Korea
I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.
The Immortal Rejoinders of Christopher Hitchens
>> ^obscenesimian:
Another man in our times that matches his caliber?
Let me list a few that pop into my head:
Noam Chomsky
Carl Sagan
George Carlin
Stephen Jay Gould
Richard Dawkins
David Suzuki
Douglas Adams
Bill Hicks.
Granted, they all differ, but they certainly hold up in my eyes.
The same thing could have been said when Sagan passed, but others moved in to fill his shoes.
It's all good, we just have to keep an eye out for the new person who is waiting to have a go.
>> ^bcglorf:
He will be so very sorely missed. I truly can not think of or name another man in our times that nearly matches his caliber.
....................
It is a very sad day and our world is considerably diminished by his loss.
I think you slightly diminish Hitch's name including Carlin, Hicks and Suzuki. Even Chomsky only bares inclusion for his great heights in the past.
I get your point, but you may want to read up on Hitchen's some more. He stood apart from almost everyone on your list by willingly putting himself in harms way to put his beliefs and understanding to the test, and in many cases surviving the ordeal to come back and declare that what he learned had changed his mind.
The Immortal Rejoinders of Christopher Hitchens
Another man in our times that matches his caliber?
Let me list a few that pop into my head:
Noam Chomsky
Carl Sagan
George Carlin
Stephen Jay Gould
Richard Dawkins
David Suzuki
Douglas Adams
Bill Hicks.
Granted, they all differ, but they certainly hold up in my eyes.
The same thing could have been said when Sagan passed, but others moved in to fill his shoes.
It's all good, we just have to keep an eye out for the new person who is waiting to have a go.
>> ^bcglorf:
He will be so very sorely missed. I truly can not think of or name another man in our times that nearly matches his caliber.
....................
It is a very sad day and our world is considerably diminished by his loss.
The Louis Experiment - What does it mean? (Standup Talk Post)
Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Nice write-up. Although I think it's great that Louie is skipping the middle-man, my worry is that this approach doesn't scale.
Imagine if the top 30 comedy headliners all did this on their own websites. The novelty is gone and the content does not get the adoring press on sites like ours. Having to track down individual websites and go through their registration process is not really hard, but probably too much to ask the lazy invisible hand of self-interested consumers.
When that happens you have to think about aggregating that content, marketing plans, promotion and then ... you're back in the same boat with needing a distribution engine and lots of middle men.
On justifying torrenting, Daring Fireball pulled out a great quote from that Louie AMA on Reddit:
That's how I justify my limited torrenting. It's a faceless company. I try to limit it to TV. And also tell myself that if something like Hulu was available in Australia I would pay and watch through that mechanism. For many shows, torrenting is the only path available for me to watch in this country.
kulpims
(Member Profile)
In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote
thanks man!
Charles Shaw: The History of Police Militarization in the US
wow this guys like a dread-locked Noam Chomsky, 40 minutes of facts in your face + questions. Thanks for posting this geo.
JakPak-The tent you wear-Perfect for Occupy Whatever!
Few days ago I dropped by Occupy Seattle and dropped off like 15 Noam Chomsky books. Everybody who supports Occupy Wall Street should just do your bit...if you're curious just go ask what they need. It's usually something simply like plastic forks and paper plates.
TDS - NPR vs. Conservative Talk Radio
>> ^quantumushroom:
What comparison?
NPR is taxpayer-funded liberal propaganda. LOSERS!
They're not liberal at all. Here's an example.
Some of their listeners back when the first Gulf War happened started whining that they weren't having anyone on that knew a goddamn thing...specifically Noam Chomsky. So Noam was asked if he could write something...have them read it and then record it for them...Not be on air but PRE-Record something for them so they can make sure he won't say something horribly left wing. He did it and they advertised that they during their championing of the war were going to have a 90sec dissenting opinion from Noam Chomsky.
Well some music came on and then just kept going, and no one ever heard his little bit of dissent of what he had to say. People started calling to complain, then the station manager called Chomsky explaining to him that some executive above him had decided to not have that dissenting opinion on and ordered it pulled.
This was back in the FIRST Iraq War...never heard of Chomsky being on NPR during the second. NPR is controlled VERY VERY carefully. Chomsky can be on right wing shows, he's invited to those a lot he says. Anything even remotely hinting at being left or under fire for being left CAN'T even come close. They're just too controlled.