US Savage Imperialism

[georgephillip]

So, instead of condemning Chomsky for the same actions you condemn others for, you forgive him and praise him for those actions.

Gasp.

What a hypocrite you are.

How is Chomsky responsible for the misuse of his theories?
Do you blame Einstein for Hiroshima?

The fact that hired killers use genius to kill other people's children and grow rich from mass murder isn't something I feel the need to apologize for.

Why did you dedicate two decades of your life to helping the hired killers?

Hypocrite.

Are you saying Chomsky is so weak-willed he couldn't have refused to help the Pentagon?

What help has Chomsky provided the Pentagon with?

Do you think his assessment of recent US history is something the Pentagon considers helpful?

Do you?

"By WWII, without going into the details, though the U.S. had long been by far the richest country in the world, it was playing a kind of secondary role in world affairs. The main actor in world affairs was the British—even the French had a more global reach.

"WWII changed all that. American planners during WWII, Roosevelt's planners, understood very well from the beginning of the war that it was going to end with the U.S. in a position of overwhelming power.

"As the war went on and the Russians ground down the Germans and pretty much won the European war, it was understood that the U.S. would be even more dominant. And they laid careful plans for what the post-war world would look like.

"The United States would have total control over a region that would include the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former British Empire, and as much of Eurasia as possible, including, crucially, its commercial and industrial core—Western Europe.

"That's the minimum.

"The maximum was the whole world and, of course, we need that for security. Within this region, the U.S. would have unquestioned control and would limit any effort at sovereignty by others.

"The U.S. ended the war in a position of dominance and security that had no remote counterpart in history.

"It had half the world's wealth, it controlled the whole hemisphere, the opposite sides of both oceans.

"It wasn't total.

"The Russians were there and some things were still not under control, but it was remarkably expansive.

"Right at the center of it was the Middle East.

"One of President Roosevelt's long-time, high-level advisers, Adolf A. Berle, a leading liberal, pointed out that control of Middle East oil would yield substantial control of the world—and that doctrine remains.

"It's a doctrine that's operative right at this moment and that remains a leading theme of policy."

US Savage...

 

[daveman]

Because the pentagon is tasked with bizarro missions like winning hearts and minds of insurgents, propaganda across the globe and information wars. You may not realize this but our propaganda, intel and espionage budget is considerably larger than our military hardware/military personnel/military installation bill. Something like 40% of the military is intel and propaganda tasked.

And Chomsky is a gold mine for propaganda specialists. Nobody decodes propaganda or distills it better.

Now you get to prove that that's what he does for the Pentagon.

NOTE: "Because I really really really really want it to be true" is not proof. You'll have to do better than your usual.

Why is the pentagon funding Chomsky's dept at MIT? Charity? Or because it serves them to do so?

Not for his political views, as you so desperately want to believe.

Chomsky's entrance into the world of academe came in 1955 when he received his PhD. He was already a political radical, having determined at the age of ten that capitalism and the American military-industrial complex were dangerous and repugnant. You might think that Chomsky, being a linguist, worked for the MIT Linguistics Department when he joined the faculty. But in fact, Chomsky chose to work for the Research Laboratory of Electronics, which was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations. Because of the largesse from this "menace to human life," lab employees like Chomsky enjoyed a light teaching load, an extensive staff, and a salary that was roughly 30 percent higher than equivalent positions at other universities.

Over the next half century, Chomsky would make millions by cashing checks from "the most hideous institution on this earth."

He wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army (Signal Corps), the air force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research. Though Chomsky says that American corporations "are just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism," he apparently didn't mind taking money from them, either, because the Eastman Kodak Corporation also provided financial support.

His next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, was produced with money from the Joint Services Electronic Program (U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force) as well as the U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Division.

Serving this "fascist institution" (as he has repeatedly called it) became a family affair when his wife, Carol, also an accomplished linguist, signed on for Pentagon work participating in a DoD-funded project called "Baseball."(11)

Why would the Pentagon fund research into linguistics? Were they simply interested in advancing science? Chomsky would call anyone who believed such a thing supremely naive. As Chomsky well knew, his work in linguistics was considered vital by the air force and others to improve their "increasingly large investment in so-called 'command and control' computer systems" that were being used "to support our forces in Vietnam." As air force colonel Edmund P. Gaines put it in 1971, "Since the computer cannot 'understand' English, the commanders' queries must be translated into a language that the computer can deal with; such languages resemble English very little, either in their form or in the ease with which they are learned and used."(12)​

So, a guy who abhors both capitalism and the American military has gotten wealthy from working for the Pentagon.

And you idiots are incapable of recognizing his stellar hypocrisy.

 

[daveman]

How is Chomsky responsible for the misuse of his theories?
Do you blame Einstein for Hiroshima?

The fact that hired killers use genius to kill other people's children and grow rich from mass murder isn't something I feel the need to apologize for.

Why did you dedicate two decades of your life to helping the hired killers?

Hypocrite.

Are you saying Chomsky is so weak-willed he couldn't have refused to help the Pentagon?

What help has Chomsky provided the Pentagon with?

Do you think his assessment of recent US history is something the Pentagon considers helpful?

Do you?

"By WWII, without going into the details, though the U.S. had long been by far the richest country in the world, it was playing a kind of secondary role in world affairs. The main actor in world affairs was the British—even the French had a more global reach.

"WWII changed all that. American planners during WWII, Roosevelt's planners, understood very well from the beginning of the war that it was going to end with the U.S. in a position of overwhelming power.

"As the war went on and the Russians ground down the Germans and pretty much won the European war, it was understood that the U.S. would be even more dominant. And they laid careful plans for what the post-war world would look like.

"The United States would have total control over a region that would include the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former British Empire, and as much of Eurasia as possible, including, crucially, its commercial and industrial core—Western Europe.

"That's the minimum.

"The maximum was the whole world and, of course, we need that for security. Within this region, the U.S. would have unquestioned control and would limit any effort at sovereignty by others.

"The U.S. ended the war in a position of dominance and security that had no remote counterpart in history.

"It had half the world's wealth, it controlled the whole hemisphere, the opposite sides of both oceans.

"It wasn't total.

"The Russians were there and some things were still not under control, but it was remarkably expansive.

"Right at the center of it was the Middle East.

"One of President Roosevelt's long-time, high-level advisers, Adolf A. Berle, a leading liberal, pointed out that control of Middle East oil would yield substantial control of the world—and that doctrine remains.

"It's a doctrine that's operative right at this moment and that remains a leading theme of policy."

US Savage...

Keep reading.

 

[georgephillip]

Satan has been quoted more than almost anyone else. Let's all become Satanists.

nobody has ever quoted Satan. Even the bible doesn't list a single quote credited to Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub. There is a little passage wherein Jesus speaks with a legion of spirits, none of which are identified as Satan.

Wrong again. Book of Job, beginning with verse 7:

7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

Sure looks like a quote attributed to Satan to ME.

The Bible is #1 on that all time top ten list of which Chomsky is the only living example.

Satan quotes probably fall within the sphere of mythology and lies the rich tell.

Unlike Chomsky and Marx.

 

[mdn2000]

I can think of nothing that exhibits stupidity better than to defend Chomsky, nothing is easier to prove as false than anything Chomsky has spoken, anything that Chomsky has written.

Chomsky is so full of shit that there are websites that have already done the work of proving Chomsky as nothing more than a liar.

Post anything Chomsky has written and its already proven a lie.

Chomsky lies: denial of the Khmer Rouge holocaust in Cambodia.

Chomsky lies:

Chomsky's articles are full of learned sounding citations, in which he cites all sorts of impeccably respectable sources for all sorts of astonishing facts. Highly improbable facts. How does he do it? Easy. He makes it up.

In Distortions at Fourth Hand [1] , Chomsky and Herman assure us that anything wrong in Cambodia was the fault of the USA, that there was decisive evidence proving the innocence of the Khmer Rouge, evidence which, alas, “space limitations preclude” them from presenting.

I checked every citation in the entire article. Not one of them was wholly truthful. At best they were slippery equivocations, with the obvious meaning being a lie, and an alternate, hidden meaning, true but irrelevant, to provide an escape hatch should the lie be discovered

 

[georgephillip]

Are you saying Chomsky is so weak-willed he couldn't have refused to help the Pentagon?

What help has Chomsky provided the Pentagon with?

Do you think his assessment of recent US history is something the Pentagon considers helpful?

Do you?

"By WWII, without going into the details, though the U.S. had long been by far the richest country in the world, it was playing a kind of secondary role in world affairs. The main actor in world affairs was the British—even the French had a more global reach.

"WWII changed all that. American planners during WWII, Roosevelt's planners, understood very well from the beginning of the war that it was going to end with the U.S. in a position of overwhelming power.

"As the war went on and the Russians ground down the Germans and pretty much won the European war, it was understood that the U.S. would be even more dominant. And they laid careful plans for what the post-war world would look like.

"The United States would have total control over a region that would include the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former British Empire, and as much of Eurasia as possible, including, crucially, its commercial and industrial core—Western Europe.

"That's the minimum.

"The maximum was the whole world and, of course, we need that for security. Within this region, the U.S. would have unquestioned control and would limit any effort at sovereignty by others.

"The U.S. ended the war in a position of dominance and security that had no remote counterpart in history.

"It had half the world's wealth, it controlled the whole hemisphere, the opposite sides of both oceans.

"It wasn't total.

"The Russians were there and some things were still not under control, but it was remarkably expansive.

"Right at the center of it was the Middle East.

"One of President Roosevelt's long-time, high-level advisers, Adolf A. Berle, a leading liberal, pointed out that control of Middle East oil would yield substantial control of the world—and that doctrine remains.

"It's a doctrine that's operative right at this moment and that remains a leading theme of policy."

US Savage...

Keep reading.

Here's one explanation for why Noam never taught in the Linguistics Department at MIT:

"Despite the linguistics courses, most of which were with Harris, Chomsky says he 'never studied linguistics in a conventional or formal manner' at Penn. 'The fact of the matter is I have no professional training or credentials.

"'I could never get admitted to this department [at MIT].

"'It’s kind of a well-known fact in the field; it’s not a secret. I had a very idiosyncratic background, and was interested in other things.'”

Apparently, the job at the Research Laboratory of Electronics was the only MIT position available to him:

"His appointment was in MIT’s Research Laboratory of Electronics—the perfect spot for Chomsky, who says he didn’t know the difference 'between a radio and a toaster.'

"(He also told the director that the machine-translation project to which he would be assigned had 'no intellectual interest and was also pointless'—and got hired anyway.)

"But his research was open-ended and his appointment only partial, so in order to support his family he had to teach: German, French, philosophy, logic—and linguistics. 'He taught his linguistics,' writes Randy Harris, 'and the lecture notes for this course became the answer to the rhetorical gulf between the audience for Logical Structure … and everyone else in the field.'”

As far as Chomsky earning millions from the Pentagon over the next half century, that could be described as using your enemies resources to reform it.

You've raised information I was unaware of, and it's certainly fodder for future threads.

Speech

 

[daveman]

Unsurprisingly, you refuse to acknowledge his hypocrisy.

And now it seems he's not even a real linguist.

 

[Douger]

OK. I mopped up the puke.
Go to any online dictionary and look up "Lucifer"
He arrives here every morning about 445 am.
HINT. He bringeth duh light.

 

[georgephillip]

I can think of nothing that exhibits stupidity better than to defend Chomsky, nothing is easier to prove as false than anything Chomsky has spoken, anything that Chomsky has written.

Chomsky is so full of shit that there are websites that have already done the work of proving Chomsky as nothing more than a liar.

Post anything Chomsky has written and its already proven a lie.

Chomsky lies: denial of the Khmer Rouge holocaust in Cambodia.

Chomsky lies:

Chomsky's articles are full of learned sounding citations, in which he cites all sorts of impeccably respectable sources for all sorts of astonishing facts. Highly improbable facts. How does he do it? Easy. He makes it up.

In Distortions at Fourth Hand [1] , Chomsky and Herman assure us that anything wrong in Cambodia was the fault of the USA, that there was decisive evidence proving the innocence of the Khmer Rouge, evidence which, alas, “space limitations preclude” them from presenting.

I checked every citation in the entire article. Not one of them was wholly truthful. At best they were slippery equivocations, with the obvious meaning being a lie, and an alternate, hidden meaning, true but irrelevant, to provide an escape hatch should the lie be discovered

Refute this:

"It's tempting to go back to the beginning.

"The beginning goes pretty far back, but it is useful to think about some aspects of American history that bear directly on current U.S. policy in the Middle East.

"The U.S. is a pretty unusual country in many ways.

"It's maybe the only country in the world that was founded as an empire.

"It was an infant empire—as George Washington called it—and the founding fathers had broad aspirations.

"The most libertarian of them, Thomas Jefferson, thought that this infant empire should spread and become what he called the 'nest' from which the entire continent would be colonized.

"That would get rid of the 'Red,' the Indians as they'd be driven away or exterminated.

"The Blacks would be sent back to Africa when we don't need them anymore and the Latins will be eliminated by a superior race."

Refute Chomsky's assertion that America has been a very racist country from its beginning.

Savage US

 

[georgephillip]

Unsurprisingly, you refuse to acknowledge his hypocrisy.

And now it seems he's not even a real linguist.

You haven't proven his hypocrisy.

 

[daveman]

Unsurprisingly, you refuse to acknowledge his hypocrisy.

And now it seems he's not even a real linguist.

You haven't proven his hypocrisy.

So, him taking money (i.e., capitalism) from an institution he called a "menace to human life" ISN'T hypocrisy?

You're a good little Chomskybot.

 

[Baron]

Shakespeare, Freud, Marx, Chaucer, Cicero...Chomsky.
.

LOL,

how can you compare lunatic socialist Chomsky, sexual maniac Freud, devil Marx with Shakespeare, Chaucer or Cicero? All "ideas" of anarchist Chomsky can be easily flushed down the toilet.

 

[georgephillip]

Unsurprisingly, you refuse to acknowledge his hypocrisy.

And now it seems he's not even a real linguist.

You haven't proven his hypocrisy.

So, him taking money (i.e., capitalism) from an institution he called a "menace to human life" ISN'T hypocrisy?

You're a good little Chomskybot.

You're confusing allegations with proof.

Prove he's taken millions from the Pentagon.

At the very least I would wait until I find out what his response has been to these charges.

Maybe you have an immediate response to his claim that the US "was a very racist country all the way through its history..."

Savage US

 

[georgephillip]

Shakespeare, Freud, Marx, Chaucer, Cicero...Chomsky.
.

LOL,

how can you compare lunatic socialist Chomsky, sexual maniac Freud, devil Marx with Shakespeare, Chaucer or Cicero? All "ideas" of anarchist Chomsky can be easily flushed down the toilet.

All are members of a top ten list of most widely quoted authors throughout history.

A list that begins with the Bible.

When Chomsky claims the US has been "...a very racist country all the way through its history" or that "...it is useful to think about some aspects of American history that bear directly on current US policy in the Middle East", are these ideas you would want flushed?

Savage US

 

[daveman]

You haven't proven his hypocrisy.

So, him taking money (i.e., capitalism) from an institution he called a "menace to human life" ISN'T hypocrisy?

You're a good little Chomskybot.

You're confusing allegations with proof.

Prove he's taken millions from the Pentagon.

Will his own words suffice?

The reference to the military links is also in CAMPUS, INC.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower, edited by Geoffry D. White,. In an interview in the last chapter, MIT Professor Chomsky says: "...The universities did receive large-scale subsidies, quite often under the cover of defense.

"I happened to be on a committee that was set up to investigate these matters about thirty years ago. It was the first such committee for me as a result of student activism that was concerned about the reliance of MIT on military spending, what it meant, and so on. So there was a faculty/student committee set up and I was asked to be on it, and I think it was the firstreview ever of MIT fundidng...My memory is that at that time, about half of MIT's income came from two military laboratories. These were secret laboratories. One was Lincoln Labs and one then called the I Labs, now the Draper Labs, which at the time was working on guidance systems for intercontinental missiles and that sort of thing. These were secret labs and that was approximately half of the income. And, of course, that income in all kinds of ways filtered into the university through library funds and health funds and so on. Nobody knew the bookkeeping details and nobody cared much, but it was an indirect subsidy to the university.

"The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications,they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn't have been a music department unless therewas funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you coulddribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody wasPentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said."
​

At the very least I would wait until I find out what his response has been to these charges.

As I just showed you, his response is "yes, I did it".

Maybe you have an immediate response to his claim that the US "was a very racist country all the way through its history..."

Savage US

My response is, "Look inside the Oval Office, you moron."

 

[georgephillip]

Chomsky actually shares something with the Right that receives very little focus. They both believe that government lies in order to protect and expand its power.

Here is the problem. When it comes to real government power, i.e., war, the Right trusts government far too much to question it. At the end of the day, the Right is an unquestioning servant of what government says about the War on Terrorism. The Right questions nothing.

Real government power is insulated by the Right's fake questioning of it. Their leaders create a facade of mistrust; they act as if they're holding government accountable so nobody notices that they're not questioning government on the most important things. This is the point of talk radio: to direct the mistrust into safe issues so the real power of government is safely insulated from the serfs, who are conditioned to salivate on cue to gay marriage, illegal aliens, and welfare cheats, so nobody notices that country is being looted by derivative scams and corrupt wars. This is why the average Right wing voter is so dangerous to the country -- because they are so easily fooled by Talk Radio, which is literally paid to agitate the serfs over manufactured demons.

Remember: the Left protested LBJ's war in the 60s, whereas the Right treats Reagan with more reverence than God, and they trust the Pentagon budget more than their pastor. (They trust government!)

The Right claims to worry about big government, but they are rabid believers in (and defenders of) their version of Big Government -- and nothing is bigger and more invasive than a government's war powers. Here is what the Right doesn't understand: the Cold War not only made government bigger and more expensive than LBJ's Great Society, but it made it more secretive, that is, the Right began to use the Cold War (and later the War on Terrorism) to spy on (and collect data on) American citizens. The Right hides behind the threat of national enemies in order to hunt internal political enemies, e.g., using the patriot act to take down Spitzer, who was making a move against the Bush administration and Bush allies on Wall Street. During the 50's, the Cold War became a vehicle to destroy Liberal politicians, who the Right claimed were in cahoots with the Soviets. The Right craves government power, and they use it more corruptly than anyone.

The Right also used the Soviet threat (and later the terrorist threat) to move more of components of Government behind locked doors, insulated from the press and the public, that is, they used (and still use) war to concentrate and hide government power. "Sorry, that's a national security issue. We can't let you review the intelligence we have on Saddam, or investigate why the FBI was used to investigate Spitzer"

How does the GOP get away with such dangerous and corrupt concentrations of Government power? The average Rightwing voter doesn't question a thing when it comes to their trusted big brother. They only challenge the government over manufactured wedge issues aka distractions. Where the rubber meets the road, however, they don flag pins and bow at the alter of the Pentagon, consigning us to strategic blunders without end.

They say government can't be trusted to run a laundromat, but they gave it the power base the globe and rebuild whole Arab nations. (They never question one single Pentagon budget item or mission BECAUSE they trust government deeply. If Bush says they can build an Iraq-Disney, they march in unison like lemmings. If Bush says Saddam has nukes pointed at Idaho, they flock to the message boards as government servants).

Their pathological loyalty to government prevents them from seeing this contradiction. Love is blind, and the Right loves government.

Don't you people get it? The right defines themselves over their suspicion of government, but they drooled and cried when Reagan spoke about the evil empire. These people love and trust government deeply.

Corrupt politicians and dumb voters, left and right, have gotten this country stuck in Arab quick sand and predatory housing bubbles.

We can no longer afford's the Right's trust of big government. We need them to break the chains of Talk Radio and learn how to question government on issues that Rush doesn't talk about.

God Help Us.

You lost me earlier with talk of lions and lambs and the manly virtues of killing other people's children for money; however, the points you make about the Right blind faith in the War Racket seem dead on, to me.

Conservatives I've known have always believed in eternal war without any concern for who's getting rich and who's getting dead.

It's part of a broader framing where conservatives claim to favor "free market" solutions to social problems when their elites are really concerned with shaping market outcomes to redistribute wealth upward.

Dean Baker's: Conservative Nanny State:

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors.

"They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

The rabid right's allegiance to war and secrecy doesn't accept any questions when it comes to Pentagon corruption, for example. They seem to believe that generals and admirals earning six and seven figure salaries from defense contractors represent a smaller threat to Democracy than Spitzer or ACORN.

The only possible "Big Lie" I see that's actually BIG enough to make conservatives rethink their blind faith in war is 911.

If it's proven elements of Bush/Cheney knew in advance of the attacks, the Republican Party vanishes from the page of time and maybe the War Racket itself will be forced to admit its crimes on C-SPAN.

 

[daveman]

Wow. Dean Baker is an idiot.

 

[georgephillip]

So, him taking money (i.e., capitalism) from an institution he called a "menace to human life" ISN'T hypocrisy?

You're a good little Chomskybot.

You're confusing allegations with proof.

Prove he's taken millions from the Pentagon.

Will his own words suffice?

The reference to the military links is also in CAMPUS, INC.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower, edited by Geoffry D. White,. In an interview in the last chapter, MIT Professor Chomsky says: "...The universities did receive large-scale subsidies, quite often under the cover of defense.

"I happened to be on a committee that was set up to investigate these matters about thirty years ago. It was the first such committee for me as a result of student activism that was concerned about the reliance of MIT on military spending, what it meant, and so on. So there was a faculty/student committee set up and I was asked to be on it, and I think it was the firstreview ever of MIT fundidng...My memory is that at that time, about half of MIT's income came from two military laboratories. These were secret laboratories. One was Lincoln Labs and one then called the I Labs, now the Draper Labs, which at the time was working on guidance systems for intercontinental missiles and that sort of thing. These were secret labs and that was approximately half of the income. And, of course, that income in all kinds of ways filtered into the university through library funds and health funds and so on. Nobody knew the bookkeeping details and nobody cared much, but it was an indirect subsidy to the university.

"The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications,they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn't have been a music department unless therewas funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you coulddribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody wasPentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said."
​

At the very least I would wait until I find out what his response has been to these charges.

As I just showed you, his response is "yes, I did it".

Maybe you have an immediate response to his claim that the US "was a very racist country all the way through its history..."

Savage US

My response is, "Look inside the Oval Office, you moron."

Keep reading.

"Well, it's important to recognize that during that period, the university was extremely free.

"The lab where I was working, the research lab for electronics, was also one of the centers of anti-Vietnam War resistance.

"We were organizing national tax resistance and the support groups for draft resistance were based there to a large extent. I mean, I, myself, was in a jail repeatedly at the time.

"It didn't make any difference.

"The Pentagon didn't care.

"In fact, they didn't care at all as far as I knew.

"Their function, they understood very well, is to provide the cover for the development of the science and technology in the future so that the corporate system can profit.

GW: So they were just too big and powerful to be threatened. You were too minor of a threat?

MIT Professor Chomsky: "They just didn't care. What happened at the administrative level I didn't know, but nothing ever got to us.

"I had perfectly good relations with the administration.

"In fact, I'd tell them if I knew I was going to get arrested.

"I had no particular interest in embarrassing them, but it didn't matter.

Chomsky was taking the Pentagon's money and organizing against the draft. How smart would someone have to be to get away with that.

You would call that hypocrisy, and I would call it revolution.

Conspiracy Planet?

btw, when I look into the Oval Office today, I see Goldman Sachs' Boy.

What do you see?

A Slave?

 

[georgephillip]

Wow. Dean Baker is an idiot.

Because he doesn't publish on "Conspiracy Planet"?

"Dean Baker (b. July 13, 1958) is an American macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, with Mark Weisbrot.

"He previously was a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor of economics at Bucknell University.

"He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan."

Your Ph.D?

Your Wiki?

From Conspiracy Planet maybe?

 

[Samson]

Do you care if it's true the US killed one out of every three Koreans living north of the 38th parallel during the Korean War?

Three MILLION lives lost.

Death during War........damn unfair.



Were the 3 Million Koreans trying to surrender?

Possibly the children?

US bombs first pulverized every North Korean city, town and village into rubble, then the planes came back and turned the rubble into pebbles.

Do you thing the profit margin on each bomb explains why this occurred?

"Possibly the Children?"

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Was North Korea trying to surrender, and we continued bombing despite this intention: YES or NO?

The answer is NO

If North Koreans and their Chinese Masters wanted to end the war, then they could simply surrender.

They didn't.

As a consequence, they suffer 3 million casulties (deaths), and the border is at the 38th parallel.