Totally tears chomsky a new one. i wonder what the big deal is about this guy.
he doesnt seem too bright. David Horowitz has a sharper pen and greater insight. i think its cause he is outside the establishment and chomsky IS the establishment.
[sarcasm]Yeah, MIT professors who are considered revolutionaries in the fields of linguistics and philosophy aren't usually very smart.[/sarcasm]
I'm assuming you're talking about the Anti-Chomsky reader; sorry to tell you this but like 70% of the stuff in that book is wrong or highly misleading, and the other 30% is purely ad hominem.
¡EL PUEBLO UNIDO JAMÁS SERÁ VENCIDO!
/sarcasm
Depends on how you are using this word. After analyzing this word for 3 hours you may mean stupid. if by sarcasm you mean they are stupid then you are correct.
Credentials are not an argument. There are people who go to MIT with opposing views.
Have you actually seen the documentary, "Manufacturing Consent," or read any of Chomsky's books? Even if you don't feel like reading his books (I've only read a small smal amount of his writing), you should at least check out the movie, which is very well done.
Here (video clip) Chomsky speaks for himself on the question of the legacy of Reagan:
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2004/june/video/dnB20040607a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=26:56.63
Horowitz is a hack. (In the interest of disclosure: I have not read any book by Horowitz, but I have seen him on FOX News, where he was welcomed as an expert, spoke for himself, and I presume he was presented in the best light.)
http://publicaddress.net/default,2019.sm#post
Horowitz is a hack???
This is not an argument but a smear. Its also a bad one cause its usually reserved for fiction writers. I think you are confused.
Poster returns to thread he started seven years earlier. Poster takes umbrage at the author being called a hack. Poster finds author insightful in contrast to Chomsky.
Therefore, poster is Horowitz...?
Chomsky isn't brilliant for new ideas, he's brilliant for substituting facts with innuendos and implying motives. He never completely lies but he never gives plain facts.
Interesting fact: In the garden of Eden the snake used implications to influence Eve who in turn influenced Adam into eating of the tree of Knowledge.
Our society has become too sophisticated for outright lies to work and Chomsky has capitalized on it.
And watch how rabid his followers can be; they are part and parcel of the Cult of Personality. They don't want to look at facts so they go for character assassination because that's what other people do to them, right? Assigning motives like their idols do.
https://webwewant.mozilla.org/en/
http://www.opera.com/
Pop quiz: What form of irony is on display in your post -- that you upbraid Chomsky for "substituting facts with innuendos" and include no facts yourself, apart from an allusion to a biblical parable.
To take one book almost at random, Chomsky's Fateful Triangle is one of the few intellectually honest English books about the situation in Israel/Palestine, and it's loaded with facts. Most people who have even the slightest awareness of the guy know that he's got facts up to his eyeballs; they might object to some of the conclusions he draws, but I haven't read any credible refutations.
If you want to smear him further, I'd suggest a point-by-point rebuttal of the aforementioned book.