HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Noam Chomsky blasts Obama...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:26 PM

Noam Chomsky blasts Obama: He has no moral center

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/noam-chomsky-blasts-obama-he-has-no-moral-center/

By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:33 EST

In a video published by Al Jazeera English on Saturday, MIT professor and activist Noam Chomsky slammed President Barack Obama for using aerial drones to kill suspected terrorists.

Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, “this man has no moral center.”


190 replies, 12373 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 190 replies Author Time Post
Reply Noam Chomsky blasts Obama: He has no moral center (Original post)
babsbunny Jan 2013 OP
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #1
dorkulon Jan 2013 #10
man4allcats Jan 2013 #27
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #85
kelliekat44 Jan 2013 #141
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #93
Fearless Jan 2013 #111
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #107
Bake Jan 2013 #135
buddybrown Jan 2013 #153
leftynyc Jan 2013 #154
CJCRANE Jan 2013 #159
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2013 #184
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #2
banned from Kos Jan 2013 #18
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #26
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #58
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #32
Itchinjim Jan 2013 #3
limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #13
virgogal Jan 2013 #4
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #127
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #5
shill-proof wooman. Jan 2013 #37
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #40
Bonobo Jan 2013 #38
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #41
Bonobo Jan 2013 #44
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #45
Bonobo Jan 2013 #46
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #50
Bonobo Jan 2013 #51
patrice Jan 2013 #94
Bonobo Jan 2013 #97
patrice Jan 2013 #99
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #110
siligut Jan 2013 #123
DevonRex Jan 2013 #130
freshwest Jan 2013 #48
limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #6
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #8
limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #15
salinen Jan 2013 #23
peacebird Jan 2013 #9
cheapdate Jan 2013 #36
Bonobo Jan 2013 #39
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #7
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #11
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #21
G_j Jan 2013 #68
graywarrior Jan 2013 #12
arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #25
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #66
graywarrior Jan 2013 #67
spanone Jan 2013 #14
Hekate Jan 2013 #19
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #122
jberryhill Jan 2013 #16
Hekate Jan 2013 #20
Enrique Jan 2013 #24
Doctor_J Jan 2013 #31
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #33
Bonobo Jan 2013 #42
jberryhill Jan 2013 #47
Bonobo Jan 2013 #49
DevonRex Jan 2013 #133
leftynyc Jan 2013 #156
DevonRex Jan 2013 #162
leftynyc Jan 2013 #164
DevonRex Jan 2013 #166
Bonobo Jan 2013 #175
leftynyc Jan 2013 #176
Enrique Jan 2013 #17
one_voice Jan 2013 #22
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #28
ProSense Jan 2013 #30
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #54
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #56
bama_blue_dot Jan 2013 #65
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #73
bama_blue_dot Jan 2013 #84
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #87
bama_blue_dot Jan 2013 #89
patrice Jan 2013 #90
Number23 Jan 2013 #102
datasuspect Jan 2013 #116
L0oniX Jan 2013 #137
ProSense Jan 2013 #29
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #34
freshwest Jan 2013 #80
pnwmom Jan 2013 #35
Bonobo Jan 2013 #43
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #57
Bonobo Jan 2013 #62
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #74
Bonobo Jan 2013 #77
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #81
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2013 #101
pnwmom Jan 2013 #69
freshwest Jan 2013 #88
pnwmom Jan 2013 #104
freshwest Jan 2013 #105
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #52
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #60
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #63
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #53
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #55
fascisthunter Jan 2013 #61
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #82
fascisthunter Jan 2013 #189
Bonobo Jan 2013 #64
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #71
Bonobo Jan 2013 #75
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #76
Bonobo Jan 2013 #78
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #83
dgauss Jan 2013 #70
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #72
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #112
samsingh Jan 2013 #59
treestar Jan 2013 #79
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #86
One of the 99 Jan 2013 #91
patrice Jan 2013 #96
DevonRex Jan 2013 #92
patrice Jan 2013 #95
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #98
Number23 Jan 2013 #100
msanthrope Jan 2013 #125
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2013 #103
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #106
Bonobo Jan 2013 #108
Kingwithnothrone Jan 2013 #109
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #114
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #119
leftynyc Jan 2013 #158
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #172
leftynyc Jan 2013 #174
Bonobo Jan 2013 #177
leftynyc Jan 2013 #178
Number23 Jan 2013 #188
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #113
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #115
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #117
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #121
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #126
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #143
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #148
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #165
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #182
leftynyc Jan 2013 #167
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #171
leftynyc Jan 2013 #173
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #180
leftynyc Jan 2013 #186
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #118
DevonRex Jan 2013 #131
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #134
DevonRex Jan 2013 #138
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #149
DevonRex Jan 2013 #161
YoungDemCA Jan 2013 #139
msanthrope Jan 2013 #142
Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #150
leftstreet Jan 2013 #146
patrice Jan 2013 #157
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #120
NCTraveler Jan 2013 #124
Rex Jan 2013 #128
whatchamacallit Jan 2013 #129
tama Jan 2013 #170
zellie Jan 2013 #132
YoungDemCA Jan 2013 #145
leftynyc Jan 2013 #168
Marr Jan 2013 #187
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #136
L0oniX Jan 2013 #140
YoungDemCA Jan 2013 #144
ann--- Jan 2013 #152
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #163
Douglas Carpenter Jan 2013 #147
tama Jan 2013 #169
Douglas Carpenter Jan 2013 #183
tama Jan 2013 #185
ann--- Jan 2013 #151
BigDemVoter Jan 2013 #155
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2013 #160
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #179
hopemountain Jan 2013 #181
woo me with science Jan 2013 #190

Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:28 PM

1. Just lost all respect for Chomsky. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:38 PM

10. I'm sure he'll be crushed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:32 PM

27. Ha ha ha! Good one!

ROFLMAO!

+ 100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:48 PM

85. No more or less than President Obama would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:46 PM

141. Just like Sy Hearsh was about Viet Nam.

People just don't want to hear the truth about their leaders, or themselves for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:23 AM

93. Did he try to burst your comfortable denial bubble. Shame on him. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #93)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:52 AM

111. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:32 AM

107. Did you ever have any respect for Chomsky to begin with? - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:22 PM

135. Because he dared criticize President Obama???

Oh, the humanity!!

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:18 PM

153. Hang on, I must be missing something here, this is the guy us and Chomski were waiting for

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buddybrown (Reply #153)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:20 PM

154. Is that English? (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buddybrown (Reply #153)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:40 PM

159. You are the person

you were waiting for!

Change begins with you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:59 PM

184. LOL! you've never heard of him!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:29 PM

2. Chomsky said the same of Jimmy Carter

At least he's consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:50 PM

18. True, Carter "terrorized" the Indonesian people

 

according to Norm (sic).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:30 PM

26. Don't forget Carter's "devil's bargain" with Pol Pot



Chomsky is equal opportunity on this stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:54 PM

58. Considering that Chomsky's Pol Pot apologism, that's rich. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:15 PM

32. And he was correct then as well. Right and wrong are real measures and one's capacity

 

to rationalize doing wrong is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:29 PM

3. "a black activist had recounted a story "

Let me guess: Cornel West?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Itchinjim (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:43 PM

13. I was guessing Alice Walker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:32 PM

4. He's basing this opinion on a second hand story? Wow !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virgogal (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:05 PM

127. No, that is not what he is doing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:34 PM

5. Plus, I heard Obama's just like Hiter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #5)


Response to shill-proof wooman. (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:58 PM

40. Do you have a graphic, or are you wasting the few posts you will get here on DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:57 PM

38. Is that Strawman #1 in this thread or #2? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:59 PM

41. #2, just behind ... "Obama has no moral center".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:03 PM

44. Errr, ummm, Joe... that is NOT a strawman.

You should, ummm, just stop now before everyone else realizes you don't know what a strawman is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:10 PM

45. Correct ... it was actually a lie ... and not a strawman.

Or maybe not a exactly a lie ... perhaps slander is more accurate.

No ... no ... Wait ... I got it ... it was a hyperbolic caricature used to generate eyeballs.

That's probably the best description.

That evil Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:15 PM

46. It is called an "opinion" and I agree with it.

Appointing a torturer to be head of the CIA seems to support my opinion as do a number of other actions too many to go into in a short time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:23 PM

50. The funny thing about opinions ...

every one HAS one.

But very few get elected President.

And so ... clearly, from what I gather from you ... Obama is an evil guy (your opinion) ... but still, he will be President for the next 4 years.

Perhaps you should get busy on the 2016 Candidate who will fix all that Obama has broken.

Noam, who I actually like, should also engage that effort.

Or, in about 2 years ... you and Noam will be upset with the next Dem Candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:26 PM

51. Your point is muddled.

What is funny about everyone having opinions?

And what does that have to do with very few people becoming president?

Forget it, Joe, I don't think your next response is likely to become clearer so I give up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #51)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:07 AM

94. I accept you point as true on its own terms. I'm not here to argue against it. I just really

do need to understand how it works relative to certain probabilities and the office of the presidency.

Probabilities such as:
Even if we didn't do one more bad thing in the world for the rest of our time as a nation on Earth, there are various possibilities for successful and significant violence against us, are there not? Neither you nor I and hardly anyone else has enough of the right information to calculate those probabilities, but just for the sake of this hypothetical, let's say that they are 50 : 50. The chances of successful significant violence against this land/people are as likely as they are un-likely.

So, let's say something significant happens, many innocent people are harmed and killed, and you, as president could have done x, y, and z to reduce the probability of, or even prevent, that successful strike, but didn't because you "have a moral center". If such harms were to happen, what are the consequences to a person with "a moral center" who could have prevented them?

Regarding what is called "rationalization" and please note the root word there, rational: If the principle is that you must not DO things that hurt innocent people, given some likelihood (either more or less probable) of harms that one can DO things to reduce or prevent those harms, why aren't the rights of those victims of harm as equal in value as the rights of a person or persons reasonably suspected of connection to the probabilities of those harms? Especially if you can DO something about those probabilities?

This is an honest question. Not a trap. I just don't understand how a "moral center" works unless it works this way. You DO what you rationally can, in terms of the situation at hand, to sustain the principle. NONE of that means that you give wholesale approval to torture or coercion, only approval limited in specific ways by the terms of specific situations. One doesn't say, TTE, "Cutting people is evil" and then refuse to do surgery, in specific ways, when it will help or save someone's life.

My line of reasoning is not as corrupt as it is often portrayed. It is the essence of what eventually became Zen Buddhism, as it is found in its cultural roots in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna does not provide Arjuna with a handy-dandy get-out-of-jail-free card. He doesn't even tell the great warrior what to do to fight the imminent evil. Krishna just simply reminds Arjuna that his life brought him to the present moment; all that had happened and Arjuna's part in it, was what made the situation what it was and NOT some other, different, less challenging situation. It's as though Krishna is telling Arjuna that he and the imminent events are the SAME thing. He doesn't absolve him, nor does he castigate him for the coming fratricide. Krishna says, in effect, "Own it," so we might conclude that whatever Arjuna does, whether he goes into the war and kills thousands, or whether he does not do battle and thousands are killed because of that, Arjuna should identify with either of his "choices", because the reality and he are not dichotomous. What is happening is who he is, however it turns out, so whatever he decides his course should be, he should DO his best to do that thing.

I'm honestly not trying to convince you of anything here. I'm just trying to explain how something works. That's how I understand it from my own life. The Bhagavad Gita gave voice to that understanding and Buddhism sustains something very similar in the value that it places on "non-attachment". I don't understand a perspective that claims another person has "no moral center" (not relative to most people that is); I don't see how that's anyone's to claim but one's own.

I respect you Bonobo, so I am asking you if you can explain what you mean to me, so I can understand better and agree to whatever extent possible.

Thanks for reading this.

p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:24 AM

97. Thank you, Patrice.

You ask such difficult questions that, of course, I couldn't begin to answer them, but I will be happy to share my way of thinking with you.

I DO ask myself the question that you raise here; namely that if I were President of the US, would I be able to maintain this same concept of moral purity that I push here. It is a fair question and it is a hard question and maybe it is a question that I cannot fully answer -but I like to believe that I would still maintain my positions but it is probably more honest to say that I would not put myself in a position where I had to sacrifice my values.

As to the question of saving lives by pre-emptive action against "threats"... and would the POTUS by morally responsible if something bad happened to the people of the US through his/her failure to preempt a possible future action... I have to say that I see it this way: Since neither I nor the POTUS could look into a crystal ball to determine future events, it is impossible for either of us to be sure that the actions (such as drone strikes that kill innocents) are necessary or a reasonable tradeoff. Yes, I know that Obama has more intelligence and so it could be said that he is in a better position to make those judgment calls, but I cannot accept it. It cannot be said who he is killing or what the ultimate results of his actions are. Did a drone strike kill a person that was going to kill US citizens or did it kill an innocent child that was going to grow up and invent a cure for malaria?

It is interesting the way you bring up the Bhagavad Gita and Zen Buddhism in the way you do. Yes, it is true that the conditions that Arjuna finds himself in are the current circumstances, but to "own up" to me means that you accept that you are creating the future conditions of the world. These conditions make the possibilities for events to happen (arise) and we are repsonsible not for what arises, but at least for creating the potential conditions. THAT is karma and I do believe in it. Karma means actions

The question than becomes what results from OUR actions (Obama's actions). Are we creating conditions for good or evil? For love or hate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #97)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:34 AM

99. Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply. I can see that, like me, you don't think any of this is

"just simply" anything.

My position is not easy; neither is yours.

So I will re-read your reply tomorrow, when my thinking is fresh again.

Thanks again!

Later.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:40 AM

110. Your logic is easily refuted by simply reversing its terms. Consider the following:

 

suppose Saddam Hussein discerned that Bush and Cheney were devising a genocidal campaign against the people of Iraq and the Middle East, a campaign based entirely upon easily-debunked lies. Suppose further that Hussein possessed the capability to deploy pilot-less drones against the Bush Junta with an eye to stopping genocide. Would you not find Saddam Hussein's use of said drones to evidence his "lack of a moral center" and thereby to be morally objectionable?

Hence, applying Kant's notion of 'universality of morality' to your proposition, if an action is wrong when one of our adversaries commits it, it must also be wrong when we ourselves undertake it. (My apologies to Kantians on this board if I have mis-stated or bastardized unduly Kant's position).

Or, as a T-shirt I saw displayed by a vendor on the Venice Beach boardwalk so aptly put it, four native Americans hold rifles under the caption "Fighting Terrorism since 1492".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:49 AM

123. You communicated this beautifully

Often this is something only experience can teach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:31 PM

130. Beautifully stated.

This is how I view it but I could not have said it so well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:20 PM

48. Well, hell, that settles it. Let's all regroup at InfoWars now...

I'm only presenting this for discussion for people to make up their minds about where Chomsky is coming from. I don't agree with the OP. I'd chanced upon the fact that Chomsky was interviewed Jones doing another search. I found two videos:

New World Order Debate - Noam Chomsky and W. Scott Thompson 1991



Alex Jones Interviews Noam Chomsky (Part 1) (for Part 2, go to youtube)



I'm not even going to watch this, but those who believe Obama is part of an international, multi-generational plot will probably find some validation here. If anyone thinks this should not be here, let me know and I'll delete it.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:34 PM

6. Thank goodness for people like Noam Chomsky who aren't afraid to state the obvious.

Oh hai, the emperor has no clothes.

BTW, Nice way to take a long, intelligent interview, pick out one inflammatory quote and turn it into a headline.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:37 PM

8. Hey Commander Buzzkill, we are trying to have a flamefest here!

 

Some people's children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:44 PM

15. LOL my bad, please proceed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:00 PM

23. Oh

 

you guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:37 PM

9. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:25 PM

36. "Nice way to take a long, intelligent interview,...

...pick out one inflammatory quote and turn it into a headline."

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:58 PM

39. Yes, it is called "fucked up, manipulative cherry picking" where I come from. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:35 PM

7. YES!!!

 




This going to be fun!!!!

BY the way, I'm on NC's side.

Now...GO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:39 PM

11. I bet he does, Noam. I'm just vexed by where it lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:56 PM

21. +100 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:04 PM

68. It may be selective

as far as can tell, or maybe mutable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:41 PM

12. I saw Chomsky speak at my college last year

He's brilliant, laid back and interesting. He also knows how to stir things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graywarrior (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:08 PM

25. The only way to get a president to change

something is to apply pressure, I say heap it on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graywarrior (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:59 PM

66. I like to re-watch his debate with Buckley from time to time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:00 PM

67. I should do that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:43 PM

14. 'a group of african american women were disappointed' says it all for me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:50 PM

19. I'd like to know who they were...

Just curious. In the interests of fuller information and considering the source and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:37 AM

122. The old white guy trick of blackwashing--cherry-picking or inventing

the sentiments of some random black people (bonus points for women in this case) who just happen to share his personal contempt for the President.

"See, black women hate Obama too. He must be evil."

Sure, just like the Log Cabin Republicans represent the sentimentes of GLBT Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:47 PM

16. He's a President, not a Priest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:51 PM

20. And that's the truth. And frankly, if he was a priest, DUers would melt down...

... regarding the separation of church and state and a bunch of other stuff.

Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:04 PM

24. the first he mentions morality in the interview

it is about his own moral obligation. the second mention, it is about our moral obligation as citizens. then, in an answer to a question about Obama's moral compass, he gives the answer in the headline.

Clearly, "morality" has nothing to do with being a priest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:19 PM

33. Being a sociopath is pretty much a requirement to want to be the President.

 

Sane people don't want to be in the position of dealing with the things a President has to deal with.

I generally judge how good or bad the man was by how much he ages in his term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:59 PM

42. I would like to see you repeat that the next time...

there is a weather disaster and people here go all googly-eyed when he hugs someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:18 PM

47. That's a matter of being human

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:21 PM

49. On his part, yes.

But for onlookers speaking in the hushed tones of awe usually reserved for holy men, it is something different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #42)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:00 PM

133. What a nasty thing to say about your fellow DUers. You just don't respect us at all, do you?

You think we're idiots or something. How nice of you. Why don't you take a minute and think about how what you said reflects on you as a member here? If you don't like us or respect us then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #42)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:25 PM

156. More tedium

from a poster who just cannot help patting himself on the back day in and day out over his imaginary superiority. Yawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #156)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:52 PM

162. Right?

The level of condescension from that on just knows no bounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #162)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:58 PM

164. Do you think he/she

realizes how pedantic they always sound? Amusing for the most part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #164)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:08 PM

166. I don't know.

I tried to start some dialogue above, but got no reply. Hopefully it made him/her at least consider how some of the comments sound to the rest of us mere mortals. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #164)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:45 PM

175. Pedantic? I'll take that any day over the trash talk, curse-filled bitterness you spill.

Check out your posts. They are as nasty as flies on shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #175)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:49 PM

176. Yawn

Don't go breaking that arm patting yourself on the back now. Bitterness? Over you? That's pretty funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:49 PM

17. 12:30 to 18:00 in the video

5 1/2 minutes about Obama, mostly about his Middle East policy, all of it thoughtful and measured. In addition, he clearly means every word, every word is consistent with what he has said about U.S. policy in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:59 PM

22. Well I'll be up all night..

fretting over this. A second hand story based on what ONE group of women thought, I don't know if I will recover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:37 PM

28. Anyone, ANYONE, who criticizes our leader is a fool

 

Chomsky simply does not understand hyper-dimentional chess played on the astral plane of fractal trans-reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:45 PM

30. Oooh,

"Chomsky simply does not understand hyper-dimentional chess played on the astral plane of fractal trans-reality. "

...deep?

Much better than picking ones nose.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:36 PM

54. Oh, SNAP!!!!

I'll confess to slowly getting used to the knuckledragger-styled insults to Obama at DU, but the admins are protecting them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:52 PM

56. No, he's just another fraudster who says stuff to get himself attention rather

than limiting himself to what he knows to be true.

This is the same guy who put Osama bin Laden in the same category as Robert Kennedy Jr and Leo Ryan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:59 PM

65. I have been wondering why this

person is still here..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:48 PM

73. Nice post count. Been here under a different handle before?

Or do you feel qualified to expel longstanding members from a place you just joined?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:39 PM

84. I was agreeing with your statement about the poster above.

I don't know why you are insulting me..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:59 PM

87. Sorry, thought comment was directed at me. Sorry for being an ass. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #87)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:02 AM

89. No problem..

I was happy to see someone else actually say something about it.. I had wanted to, but you know my "post count" stops me from that..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #87)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:07 AM

90. Yeah, and here I thought your manners were improving . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #56)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:44 AM

102. "put Osama bin Laden in the same category as Robert Kennedy Jr" Why in God's green

earth would anyone do something that stupid and reprehensible? Sounds like he is lacking common sense, some basic perspective and dareIsayit, a bit of a "moral center."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:28 AM

116. That's "Dear Leader"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:35 PM

137. They are not of the body...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:43 PM

29. Wait,

Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, “this man has no moral center.”

...you've got to be kidding me. I mean, WTF?

I guess more people need to hear this message: Obama won!

PSA: Hating Obama isn't going to make the country or the world a better place.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:21 PM

34. And equating observation and criticism to hating is? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:00 PM

80. And character assassination is not critical analysis.

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist without a place he respects enough to call his home. American libertarian is funded by the Koch brothers so he'll get no satisfaction here. And he has no solutions being put into place on this continent, sad to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:23 PM

35. Another bit of hyperbole from Chomsky. Anything for attention. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:01 PM

43. The old "He just wants attention" thing...

Heard it with Kucinich, heard it with Chomsky, heard it with Nader, heard it with Cornel West.

It is par for the course with anyone that dares to speak from a true Left perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:54 PM

57. "Obama has no moral center" is not a progressive belief.

It's not even a political belief or ideology.

It's an expression of personal animosity/hatred/contempt towards a human being the idiot who says it has never met and ergo cannot possibly be qualified to assess.

It's the position of purist losers who fancy themselves the Morality Police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:58 PM

62. No, that is just an opinion.

It is also a small cherry picked quote from a longer, thoughtful interview that does come from a progressive position.

On the other hand, your contention that is represents hatred of a human being is a ridiculous and indefensible position.

And of course he can assess the president's moral compass based on his actions. What else would someone base such an opinion on other than a person's actions? Do you honestly believe that sharing a few dinners or drinks with Obama would make such an assessment more accurate? Now THAT is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:51 PM

74. "I disagree with his policies" = "he has no morals" is a mindset

usually identified with the Christian Taliban in this country.

But, rigid doctrinaire ideologues of all stripes apparently wallow in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:56 PM

77. Nice try.

But no, anyone is free to question the morals of a person who participates in warfare, unfair incarceration, favoring the rich and other such activities. It has nothing to do with the Christian Taliban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:02 PM

81. Sure, just like Rush Limbaugh is allowed to question the morals

of women who use contraception.

Of course, there's a long list of people whose life has been made better by Chomsky's efforts. Children fed, medical care provided, jobs created, etc.

P.S. which 2 of these three are multimillionaires who use tax shelters to dodge paying personal income tax? Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Noam Chomsky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:40 AM

101. "Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Noam Chomsky?"

Ooh, Ooh, can I take a stab at it?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:20 PM

69. It's certainly true with Nader. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:01 AM

88. What's up with this? That's not analysis, it's more like rumor without foundation. Disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #88)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:10 AM

104. Chomsky gets more media attention by making hyperbolic statements than

he would if he made more measured -- and accurate -- statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #104)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:18 AM

105. I have listened to him for years. Maybe he's slowing down. Or maybe I didn't notice this.

Of course he's no Howard Zinn. That is one man I will miss - among others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:28 PM

52. Chomsky keeps his record perfect: he does not like any US presidents.

His complaints are legit (though quite harsh), but he never cuts anybody any slack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:57 PM

60. The word that comes to mind is ideologue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:58 PM

63. It's easy to take on that role when you provide philosophical guidance ....

... but do not have the mantle of leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:28 PM

53. I'd say he has an excellent "moral center"

And this story is from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from another person? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:47 PM

55. Amazing how many fraudsters like Chomsky pretend to know the inner psyche

of someone they've never met.

He as as much credibility on Obama's 'moral center' as UsWeekly readers have on Justin Bieber's relationship with Selena Gomez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #55)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:57 PM

61. "fraudsters"?

are you 12?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:03 PM

82. Anti capitalists who use Romney-style tricks to dodge taxes

are fraudsters, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #82)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:02 PM

189. yes, you are 12

ok then... tighten up that belt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #55)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:59 PM

64. Yes, judging a person based on their actions is absolutely INSANE! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:46 PM

71. "He has no moral center" is a statement of personal hatred not a policy

analysis.

Those who use and agree with such rhetoric reveal only their own pathologies, not anything meaningful from a policy perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:51 PM

75. No it isn't. It is an opinion about the man's ethics and morality. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:54 PM

76. Sure, just like the prognostications of UsWeekly readers on the

Bieber-Gomez relationship.

Neither is based on any kind of analysis or is entitled to any respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:57 PM

78. Pffft. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:04 PM

83. + 1 eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #55)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:26 PM

70. Your post certainly does raise questions of credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dgauss (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:47 PM

72. Eh, what Chomsky's fanboys and fangirls think of his

critics is as predictable as it is meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #55)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:53 AM

112. "Fraudsters like Chomsky" - I'm surprised I had not yet put you on Ignore. But there's

 

always a first time for everything.

Hope you have a nice life or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:55 PM

59. does he have other suggestions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:58 PM

79. That's ridiculous

It's not so easy; Mr. Chomsky should try a position of responsibility in any job or any leadership position and he'll find his "moral center" a lot harder to center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #79)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:52 PM

86. + 1.

It's so easy for people to be critical of someone when they don't have the responsibilities and have to put in the hard work.

It's like a guy wailing that a woman should keep the baby of her rapist, not understanding how difficult that can be mentally as well as physically because they'll never have to be in that position to have to make that choice.

Chomsky has ever right to criticize the president, of course, but people should have the intelligence to remember the above when listening to him, and to keep things in perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:09 AM

91. He's sounding more and more like a right winger.

That's their game spouting out about who has morals or who is patriotic. Chomsky should stick to issues and not delve into the politics of personal destruction. He damages his own credibility by doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:23 AM

96. Funny thing about that. If you listen to the video Freshwest posted above, you realize the 800 pound

gorilla in this room is the United Nations, so overlap between Chomsky who is authentically Left + what calls itself "the Left" these days and may or may not actually BE the Left + those right wingers you refer to - ALL - of that mitigates AGAINST development of the United Nations into what it needs to be, a more just force for good in the world, and thus relieve the USA of its not so well sustained burden of being "policeman to the world" (which Chomsky describes in that video above).

As much as I agree with some of this stuff coming from "the Left" in principle, I cannot let myself off on this point: the overlap that you refer to with right wingers WORKS AGAINST "the Left's" priorities for economic/social justice and peace. No matter how fine their principles are, they have their pragmatics, the tactical stuff, ALL wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:18 AM

92. The President Of The United States revealed his lack of moral center to

a group of activists, a group of supporters even, just after his inauguration. President Barack Obama revealed that about himself. Uh huh. Right.

Just supposing it were true, and knowing how intelligent this man is, do you, do any of you, really believe that he would show that lack of moral center to a group of activists? To a group whom he welcomed gladly? To then go out to the public and spread their impressions?

Or is it more likely that there were perhaps some unrealistic expectations held by a member of that group and that disappointment led to imprudent comments afterwards? Or is it even more likely that this is nothing more than rumor, made up out of whole cloth? For what we have here is an unsourced anecdote, nothing more.

I would have expected better of people here, really. To be completely honest, it is kind of sick to see this taken as Truth. I won't even comment on the rejoicing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #92)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:14 AM

95. Agree. Please see my post #94.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:25 AM

98. That's fucking disgusting.

I do respect Chomsky, but I think less of him now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:38 AM

100. lol

Not just a group of women. A group of "African American women." I guess that gives the story more weight. More oomph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #100)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:00 PM

125. Indeed. Apparently, the most salient point about these women is that they are "African American."

Commenting about an "African American" President. I guess it makes him sound more authoritative, if he quotes "African American" critics of the President? Nest, he'll tell us he's friends with Cornel West....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:44 AM

103. Is the statement supposed to be more powerful coming from "disappointed black....

women"? Not sure why he chose to relate such a tale. I'd much rather hear this from the "disappointed black women" in question, that is if they exist.

Noam Chomsky + Al Jazeera =

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:21 AM

106. Oh come off it!

If it were BUSH ordering drone attacks, you'd all be moaning about how terrible it was and wishing we had a Democrat in the White House.

If an act is immoral, it's immoral, no matter who does it. It's not a matter of personalities.

You can prefer one president to another without automatically liking everything he does, and if you can't criticize Obama when he deserves it, then you're basing your morality on personalities instead of principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:35 AM

108. It's sad that that needs to even be said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:37 AM

109. Thank you

 

Wanted to post what you did, but couldn't quite come up with the words to use in a civil manner.It is amazing to see the righteous indignation in this thread with nary a single comment from the righteous defenders of the President,about the moral implications of drone strikes that kill civilians.Characterizing drone strikes that kill civilians as an impossibly complex issue is bullshit.It is inhumane and wrong.It is just that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingwithnothrone (Reply #109)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:58 AM

114. Ah, but you see, to Obama's defenders, the dead and wounded aren't 'civilians' but rather

 

'terrorists disguised as children' (or 'women' or 'elderly').

(in case it's needed)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #114)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:15 AM

119. Some of the defenders act like children

Who have heard someone criticize one of their parents. "Don't you say bad things about my daddy!"

They want to believe that their choice for president is perfect and that whatever he does is automatically right.

Republicans did for with Bush, and it's disturbing to see some Democrats doing for Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #119)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:37 PM

158. Are you talking about

how some here are defending Chomsky (who frankly I always thought was a bit of an asshole - there's my opinion)? This is the Democratic Underground. We elect Democrats and work within the system we have - that's what adults do. We know perfection doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #158)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:32 PM

172. And some of us know that perfection doesn't exist but expect a little more

than abject surrender to the war hawks and the financial pirates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #172)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:42 PM

174. Ah - sorry I missed the memo

where hyperbolic bullshit was a substitution for reason. Carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #174)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:57 PM

177. You're muttering angrily while hunched over a can of reheated Campbell's soup, aren't you? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #177)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:00 PM

178. Nope-taking a break

from my full time job. And I make my own soup and try not to eat anything out of cans because of the sodium. Thanks for your interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #174)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:43 PM

188. HA!! + a million. It must be bad when something this popcorn-drenched gets a whopping 18 recs

But the spittle flung over the thread by the "YOU GUYS ARE ALL WORSHIPPERS and OnLY I KNOw the TROOF" crowd is certainly... damp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:56 AM

113. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

 

needed saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:11 AM

115. No, you come off your moral high horse and stop condemning everyone

who does anything you disapprove of as being a complete failure as a human being.

You can take the amount of people helped by Obama's policies and they out number by a factor of 10,000 those helped by Chomsky and all of his fanpeople here combined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #115)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:08 AM

117. Only one relevant question here

Would you approve of drone strikes if they were a Bush policy and only a Bush policy?

If not, then you're basing your morality on personalities.

How would you like it if the FBI bombed your neighborhood to kill a suspected Mafia don and when you complained that members of your family had been killed, the FBi and its apologists said that it was your own fault for "sheltering" a Mafia don? That's what the US government is doing to Pakistani civilians, and if large numbers of Americans think that's OK, it's further evidence that the US has gone over to the dark side in foreign policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #117)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:34 AM

121. There is such a thing as distinguishing between policy-based critique and

engaging in attacks against a person's merit as a human being.

Chomsky is doing the latter here.

And hiding behind the skirts of "concerned African American women" to blackwash his sentiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #121)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:04 PM

126. Sorry, but I do have to wonder about someone who thinks that keeping the Afghan war going

is a good idea and that it needs to be escalated.

Or who thinks that hiring banksters and CIA torturers for his Cabinet in order to please the Republicans is a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #126)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:53 PM

143. Um, Obama is planning to end our presence in Afghanistan.

Also, good luck trying to regulate the banking industry without hiring people who know how it operates from the inside. Or finding CIA administrators with good human rights records.

But, if your point is that those who disagree with you are evil human beings, well that's just not terribly different than Brian Fischer et al.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #143)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:56 PM

148. But he widened it--added more troops--before he "planned to end it"

And for the Treasury Secretary--you mean that nobody knows how to go after crooks but another crook? There are no honest people with a knowledge of how the financial system works?

And maybe, just maybe, the CIA needs a director who will clean house.

And maybe, just maybe, we need to tell the deficit hawks to shut up and help fix our jobs and infrastructure problem.

I don't even know who Brian Fischer is, but killing people in a war with a constantly shifting purpose and torturing them for any reason and profiteering off other people's financial troubles, as the banksters have done--these are evil acts. And enabling these actions is morally dubious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #148)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:02 PM

165. Yeah yeah, voting for Obama was a sin. Got it.

Heard that exact line from the rightwing Catholic reactionaries who are equally convinced they have a monopoly on issues of morality and wisdom in public policy.

Of course, in the real world there are consequences for ending a military presence just as there are consequences for continuing it.

And, of course, in your view anyone who worked inside the financial system is per se evil, so yes in your worldview it is impossble to find honest people who understand how the private financial institutions work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #165)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:21 PM

182. You are getting desperate enough to argue like a right-winger

i.e. arguing against things I never said.

'Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #126)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:20 PM

167. You seem to be in quite the rush

to leave the Afghan women in the grips of the taliban. And you want me to believe you're a liberal? Because you like Chomsky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #167)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:30 PM

171. Oh that old canard

Feminists were warning about the Taliban in the 1990s, but the CIA actually supported them at the time because they were the best organized of the factions fighting for control after the Soviet withdrawal.

An even better time to worry about the women of Afghanistan would have been 1979. The CIA started egging on the most regressive elements of society against the new Marxist government months BEFORE the Soviets were called in. (The American people were lied to and told that the Soviets sent troops in just because they were nasty Soviets who like to send troops into other countries and were using Afghanistan as a stepping stone to conquering Pakistan and gaining a warm-water port, but in fact, they were invited in to suppress the rebels, whose main beef was that the Marxist government wanted to impose women's rights on them.)

So beginning in the Carter administration and throughout the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, the U.S. actively supported the most regressive elements in Afghanistan just because they were against the Soviets.

"But," you say, "what if Afghanistan had fallen under Soviet domination!"

Yeah, what if? For all their faults, Communist governments have proven to be good at two things: universal secular education and introducing women's rights to male supremacist areas like Central Asia and China.

So spare me your tears for the women of Afghanistan. They wouldn't be in danger if the U.S. hadn't played its Cold War games in their country.

No, leftnyc, I'm a REAL leftist. I'm not held back by MSM mythology and a lack of historical perspective or dazzled by personalities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #171)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:40 PM

173. What an infantile argument

And seeing as how I've been a feminist since long before 1979, I'm well aware we were the only ones screaming about the taliban so your self righteous bullshit means nothing to me. So because our government fucked up 3 decades ago, by all means we should just hand over the women (again) to those who will make virtual slaves out of them. And you feel self righteous about your position and think communism is the answer? What a fucking joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #173)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:16 PM

180. Your reply is incoherent

I never said Communism was the answer, but it would have been better than the Taliban for the women of Afghanistan, with the added bonus that the country wouldn't be in ruins.

The U.S. can't "fix" Afghanistan, and has been remarkably ineffective in protecting the rights of Afghan women. The Taliban essentially control the countryside anyway.

I suggest reading the article in the current issue of Harper's about Afghanistan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #180)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 06:36 PM

186. An economic model

would have done nothing for the women in Afghanistan. At least we're trying. There are valid arguments to get out of there (our women and men dying, we're broke, it's an empire killer) but the cavalier way so many here are ready to leave the women and the girls who are having acid thrown in their faces for daring to want an education makes me very, very angry. As does comparing this President with our prior one. I'll never let the perfect be the enemy of the good and that's what I see on this board....every single day.

I will take your suggestion on reading that article although I suspect it'll just depress me. That'll never make me think Chomsky is anything more than a self important attention whore...a brilliant attention whore but brilliance is really nothing to admire, Antonin Scalia is a brilliant man - I still think he's an asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:11 AM

118. Bingo

Many have lost their own moral center and are unable to criticism actions by a democratic president that they would have condemned if done by a republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:48 PM

131. This little anecdote reeks of bullshit. He had to mention their race to give it credibility?

Just fucking LOL and barf. What a long way down he has fallen in my eyes. And this supposedly happened right after his inauguration? Really fucking LOL. The black women I know would have been there either in their best business suits with their quiet dignity on display or in their Sunday-go-to-meeting hats and the biggest smiles on their faces, and either way they were proud and HAPPY. Yes, happy. Pleased because at last, at last a huge barrier had been lifted. And even if they might not agree with everything, they weren't gonna walk out of any meeting with the first black President and say anything like that to fucking Chomsky. Not only no but hell no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #131)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:04 PM

134. He's only saying what many of us have suspected

Back during the Clinton administration, one of my friends explained Bill Clinton's tendency to cave in for the Republicans (which he did quite a lot in his first term) by the fact that Clinton grew up as an outsider and desperately wanted to be an insider. He therefore tried to please the "big boys" in hopes of becoming one of them. Unfortunately, as many of us learned in high school, 1) the insiders are usually a bunch of brainless moral midgets, and 2) once they have pegged you as an outsider, they will respect you less and less the more you try to get them to like you.

I see Obama as having some of the same problem. He runs as a Democrat, does a reasonably good (although not perfect) imitation of a center-left liberal while campaigning, but once he's in office, he expands the Afghan War, browbeats the Progressive Caucus into accepting a Heritage Foundation insurance plan (instead of browbeating the much smaller number of Blue Dogs into accepting a public option), widens the Afghan War (with its constantly moving goalposts and inhumane drone policy), appoints a torture-advocate as director of the CIA and two banksters (one in each term) as Secretary of the Treasury. He buys into the notion that the deficit is America's biggest problem, sufficiently so to raise the notion of cutting future Social Security benefits,when the real threats are actually long-term unemployment, lack of job opportunities for youth, global climate change, and deteriorating infrastructure.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's all theater. We get a "choice" between someone who would be considered conservative in any other Western country and someone who would be off the right end of the charts in any other Western country. Either way, the Establishment wins, quickly or slowly, and the people lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #134)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:36 PM

138. He lied in saying it. He used fictitious "African American activists" to smear Obama

I don't give a rat's ass what Chomsky has to say after that. It's a racist thing he did. He did it on purpose to give his puny ass a little credibility and made himself look like the fool he is. Somebody up thread even used this racist bullshit to make their case about why President Obama is a sociopath. It was hidden.

There is no source. No confirmation. No date. No nothing. Just bullshit. Yet here you all are, merrily dancing to the tune, yay!!! Black ladies hate Obama!!! Say he's immoral!! Yippee and whee!!! What a fucking joke.

Make your cases without using the black ladies why doncha? I guess Chomsky couldn't do it but you should. And before you say you're not doing that, just think: without the supposed quote about the lack of moral center, where would this conversation be? Nowhere. Nowhere at all. IT IS THE UNSOURCED QUOTE FROM THE FEMALE AFRICAN AMERICAN ACTIVISTS that got the brouhaha started. Without that story, we wouldn't be talking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #138)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:01 PM

149. And do you have proof that it's not true

The story is irrelevant, since I doubt that you were ever a Chomsky fan in the first place.

I never mentioned any "black ladies." I'm using my own observations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #149)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:47 PM

161. ...



Like I said, we wouldn't even be here but for Chomsky deciding to throw in the "African American women activists" saying that about Obama and IMO it's racist to use that to bolster his bullshit. So you can't wash your hands of it entirely. You ran with the lack of moral center argument as if up it were manna from heaven. As for the story, nobody can disprove what he himself didn't source. Therefore, it's bullshit on its face. Nothing but a lowdown, dirty, rotten thing for him to have done all around and to have used race in it, on top of what amounts to rumor mongering, is nothing more than despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:38 PM

139. + a million

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:51 PM

142. I would have been just fine with a drone strike to Tora Bora and number of other targets after 9/11.

In fact, if Mr. Bush had struck Tora Bora and Taliban allies with drone strikes in 2001, there might have been no Iraq war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #142)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:10 PM

150. Bush wanted an Iraq War so badly he could taste it

Remember that after 9/11 he asked if there was some way that Saddam Hussein could be blamed. It was always about the oil. Remember that the first thing the U.S. troops did was secure the Oil Ministry while allowing people to loot the Baghdad Museum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:03 PM

146. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:28 PM

157. Principles can be ANYTHING, e.g. End Times, so some people base their "morality" on the facts

in analyses of each specific situation.

Situational ethics is not the corruption some people claim it is. It is a humanistic and more rationally responsible position that can be seen as a response to conventional, in-authentic, acquisition of "principle" from established authority/power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:15 AM

120. NO!, Obama has no cream filling?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:54 AM

124. If Chomsky wanted to get that "quote" out there...

"Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, “this man has no moral center.”"

he should have stood on his own intelligence and made the statement his own. He offers no proof of whom these "African American women" are. Sounds kind of fishy. After a "visit", they pulled a Frist, and declared Obama had no "moral center".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:07 PM

128. Ya just read he thinks Obama is worser than Bush.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:11 PM

129. My new definition of insanity -

*Expecting politicians to be morally courageous people*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #129)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:29 PM

170. Like that guy in Uruguay? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:55 PM

132. He's a self-important asshole.

 

I hate that dickface.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zellie (Reply #132)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:01 PM

145. Way to refute his points...

Ad hominem much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #145)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:24 PM

168. What points?

He mentions "African American women" but there are no names, dates. Maybe you believe everything that comes out of his mouth but some of us think he's a self important, hyperbolic asshole. Do you really believe that the President has no moral center? Because that's norm's position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #168)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 06:52 PM

187. What points? It's a fairly long interview-- he made more than a few.

In direct reference to the point you're fixated on, he cited drone assassinations.

You obviously didn't read or watch the interview you're denouncing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:26 PM

136. The morality of politicians is always questionable. Centrist politicians even more so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:43 PM

140. How dare he criticize our president? ...and

how dare those disappointed women tell the black activist, “this man has no moral center.” Now let's all say that Noam Chomsky said that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:00 PM

144. Chomsky did not say that "Obama has no moral center"

Even though he did strongly criticize Obama on this issue.

Anyway....I honestly do not get "progressives" whose loyalty to one man is so intense that they just reflexively support and defend whatever he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #144)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:15 PM

152. I'm with you

The U.S. is still killing innocents along with those pesky alleged "terrorists" and is not something for Dems to be proud of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #144)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:53 PM

163. Replace politics with sports and there is not much difference

To some people, politics is a game

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:46 PM

147. well,obviously that is true. But if he did, he would never have been elected President of the United

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

States. The will to power does not attract people with solid moral centers. In today's America a person with a strong moral center would have trouble being elected dog catcher in Berkley. Politics as it is now requires officials especially someone as senior as President of the United States to make profoundly immoral decisions and to say things no moral and rational person could possibly believe. That still does not change the reality that we are forced to choose between electing which faction of moral monsters will govern society. Do we elect the ones less likely to commit even greater atrocities? Or do we elect the ones more likely to commit even greater atrocities? Do we elect the ones who will at least sustain most of the current programs that benefit most of America's least fortunate citizens that at least keeps the majority of them fed, medically cared for and in school and warm in the winter? Or do we elect the ones who would make their painful lives even more miserable, eliminate most of what little is currently available to make their wretched lives at least a little less wretched and preach an ideology that relishes bashing the least fortunate and sinisterly gloats in their misforune? WE do have a choice. Which will it be?

Unfortunately though, have no choice between angels and devils.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #147)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:28 PM

169. Do we really need even lesser evil?

 

What do we need? E.g. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is rough basic guideline. And no power hierarchies and lesser evils are included there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #169)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:56 PM

183. but we don't live in a world without power hierarchies and we do not know if such a world is possible

But we do know that not only the human condition but the entire biosphere is a place where the strong dominate the weak. And authority - even the most enlightened authority - is ultimately rooted in the ability to inflict or at least credibly threaten violence. Or as the great Russian Anarchist Peter Kropotkin put it, "wherever there is authority there is no freedom." Professor Chomsky embraces the anarchist philosophy which declares that authority and its power hierarchies can be eliminated. He points to certain examples most notably the Spanish Social Revolution of 1936. While others of the left claim that experiment in anarchy failed miserably Chomsky claims and puts forward a strong case that it worked quite will. But whatever is true - it like every single other attempt at building an authority-less society collapsed relatively quickly and is no longer around. Is it possible that such an order might work in the future? Anything is possible. But it sure the hell is not the alternative we are facing in the United States of America in of 2013 where right-wing economic and foreign policy ideology now dominate both parties - but one party to the levels of the crackpot extremism and the other to a level at least a little bit living in the world of reality. We simply do not have a choice between a cooperative commonwealth and capitalist exploitation. We have ONLY a choice between two reactionary perspectives - but one significantly less dangerous than the other. Those are the only choices that are on current offer at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #183)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 06:17 PM

185. Choises are scale dependent

 

Also in US there is choice of living relatively self-sufficiently in e.g. some sort of anarchic community - and many other choices. On national level as you say, what prevails is variety of illusion of control and "choice" limited by bi- (or multipartisan) representative system. On global scale of biosphere, there is no control, even banks are not in control... and as far as we know, the choice is to adapt or win a Darwin Award. And power hierarchies are Pyramid frauds aka Ponzi schemes are not adaptive especially when they destroy the carrying capacity or their ecosystem and behave like cancer.

I agree with Chomsky on voting and usually vote, giving the issue the five minutes it deserves but without becoming emotionally attached to any level of evil. And rest for all the other levels of local and global.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:13 PM

151. He's a corporatist

and has to keep the military weapon providers happy making those expensive drones for the US miltiary. If one has a moral center - one doesn't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:25 PM

155. Brilliant man

May not agree with him all the time. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:42 PM

160. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:11 PM

179. Name One President That Had A Moral Center

Even everyone's beloved FDR did some really, awful rotten things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:17 PM

181. if chomsky really "thinks" this of President Barack Hussein Obama -

then why does he feel the need to quote an activist who is quoting hearsay from a group of african - american women to validate his thinking? sounds kinda weak for noam chomsky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:36 PM

190. When our guy does it, it's fine!

That hypocrisy thing is hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread