WHY IS THERE NO LIBERAL AYN RAND ???

[CuteOldGuy]

Ain't love grand?

[TheAntichrist666]

Very interesting topic, thanks for sharing.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Actually I don't always agree with Chomsky's opinions and theory, but I recognize that as a top-tier scholar his research is always impeccable.

The blog that you're citing is not a peer-reviewed, highly-researched source like Chomsky is.

The blogger you're putting forward as an authority is himself lying about Chomsky.

Chomsky never lies because he's a scholar and has no motive for lying about anything.

If he was actually caught lying about even one fact his acedemic reputation, which is more distiguished than anyone, would be compromised.

When you come up with a real scholar instead of a blogger who can show Chomsky is inaccurate in any detail then I will pay attention.

What good is impeccable research if you draw the wrong conclusion?
And the idea that a scholar wouldn't have a motivation for lying is ludicrous. Einstein ignored evidence in his calculations for an expanding universe because they didn't fit his "poetic" conception of a steady state universe.
Was Hitchens not a peer reviewed scholar? He seems to have had an issue with Chumpsky.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...s_follies.html

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Actually I don't always agree with Chomsky's opinions and theory, but I recognize that as a top-tier scholar his research is always impeccable.

The blog that you're citing is not a peer-reviewed, highly-researched source like Chomsky is.

The blogger you're putting forward as an authority is himself lying about Chomsky.

Chomsky never lies because he's a scholar and has no motive for lying about anything.

If he was actually caught lying about even one fact his acedemic reputation, which is more distiguished than anyone, would be compromised.

When you come up with a real scholar instead of a blogger who can show Chomsky is inaccurate in any detail then I will pay attention.

One of the authors – a Chomsky peer – on that list is Oliver Kamm: a very vocal critic of Chomsky and his work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Kamm

January 26, 2005
Chomsky and the Vietnam War - a study in propaganda

In my comment about Noam Chomsky earlier this week, I advanced three propositions. First, his central political notion is not about Vietnam, or Timor, or Palestine: it is that the US is equivalent to Nazi Germany. Secondly, his handling of source material is dishonest. Thirdly, these characteristics are not recent developments, but date back to his earliest political writings. In this post I shall provide an example that illustrates all these points simultaneously. . . .
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2...and_the_1.html


Another on that list is Samuel P. Huntington – an original source – that Chomsky purposefully misquotes:

A Frustrating Task
February 26, 1970
In response to:

After Pinkville from the January 1, 1970 issue

To the Editors:

In the space of three brief paragraphs in your January 1 issue, Noam Chomsky manages to mutilate the truth in a variety of ways with respect to my views and activities on Vietnam.

. . . . By omitting my next sentence—”Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation”—and linking my statement about the Viet Cong to two other phrases which appear earlier in the article, Mr. Chomsky completely reversed my argument. (Incidentally, the phrase “direct application of mechanical and conventional power” is not mine, but one which I quote from Sir Robert Thompson. Mr. Chomsky, however, does not see fit to recognize these distinctions of authorship.) . . . .
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...strating-task/


And then there is the eminent scholar Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s analysis at:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/schlesinger.pdf

Here’s an excerpt:

[JD Barleycorn]

Why do you need a "real scholar" to prove Chomsky lies? Won't a lie be fairly obvious to anyone?


By comparative standards, the country is undertaxed. And it's also regressively taxed, the tax burden falls mostly on the poor. What we need is a progressive tax system, of, incidentally, the kind that Jefferson advocated. You know, traditional libertarians, like Jefferson, advocated sharply progressive taxes, because they wanted a system of relative equality, knowing that that's a prerequisite for democracy. Jefferson specifically advocated it. We don't have it anymore, it's sort of there in legislation but it's gone. What we need is different social policies. And social policies which ought to be funded by the people who are going to benefit from it, that's the general public. So we'd be a lot better off if we were higher taxed, and it was used for proper purposes. And we know what those are. I mean, for example, for women taking care of children. You know, it makes sense to pay them for that work, they're doing important work for the society. [applause] And they should be paid for it, but that requires tax payments. And the same is true about protection of the environment.

• Noam Chomsky, Talk titled "Education and Democracy" at Michigan State University, March 28, 1995

The country is undertaxed? The rich pay most of the taxes and even in 1995 the poor were paying less and less of the tax burden. I would say that Chomsky lied but you might make a case that he was just wrong. In any event this kind of discredits him in my opinion.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why do you need a "real scholar" to prove Chomsky lies? Won't a lie be fairly obvious to anyone?



By comparative standards, the country is undertaxed. And it's also regressively taxed, the tax burden falls mostly on the poor. What we need is a progressive tax system, of, incidentally, the kind that Jefferson advocated. You know, traditional libertarians, like Jefferson, advocated sharply progressive taxes, because they wanted a system of relative equality, knowing that that's a prerequisite for democracy. Jefferson specifically advocated it. We don't have it anymore, it's sort of there in legislation but it's gone. What we need is different social policies. And social policies which ought to be funded by the people who are going to benefit from it, that's the general public. So we'd be a lot better off if we were higher taxed, and it was used for proper purposes. And we know what those are. I mean, for example, for women taking care of children. You know, it makes sense to pay them for that work, they're doing important work for the society. [applause] And they should be paid for it, but that requires tax payments. And the same is true about protection of the environment.

• Noam Chomsky, Talk titled "Education and Democracy" at Michigan State University, March 28, 1995

The country is undertaxed? The rich pay most of the taxes and even in 1995 the poor were paying less and less of the tax burden. I would say that Chomsky lied but you might make a case that he was just wrong. In any event this kind of discredits him in my opinion.

Liar.

Chomsky had it right. You got Mitt paying at a 13% clip. Totally demonstartes exactly wtf Chomsky was getting at as true.

Maybe you are just an idiot.

Which is it? Liar or idiot?

COGay, have you proven yet that you haven't played with JD's peepee?

[WTF]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2...dget-ayn-rand/


[But] earlier this year [he said] “I reject her philosophy. … It’s an atheist philosophy. …give me Thomas Aquinas. … Don’t give me Ayn Rand.” … Ryan’s disavowal’s comes after years of promoting Rand’s books.

[nevergaveitathought]

the reason there is no deep thinker or considered theoricist or intellectual legacy of the left is because there are no deep thinkers of the left...

for one to become a seriously thoughtful person, is to leave the left.

it really is that simple.

are any, any of the programs of the left thoughtful? i say they are feelings based and designed, among other reasons, to make the movers on the left feel good...they are designed for many reasons, but workability and to accomplish the ostensibly stated purpose is not of ultimate concern to the left...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the reason there is no deep thinker or considered theoricist or intellectual legacy of the left is because there are no deep thinkers of the left...

for one to become a seriously thoughtful person, is to leave the left.

it really is that simple.

...

Ayn Rand is such a deep deep thinker and Bugs Bunny is a great actor!

Glad to have your well reasoned thoughts there never, when you are done embarrassing yourself swimming around in the bathtub come join us for a swim in the ocean.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

Ayn Rand is such a deep deep thinker and Bugs Bunny is a great actor!

Glad to have your well reasoned thoughts there never, when you are done embarrassing yourself swimming around in the bathtub come join us for a swim in the ocean.

did you even read the lament of the slate writer? ayn rand was just among the listed ...you cant even keep up with the import of the thread and yet you post blithely way with flying fingers and not one thought that addresses the issues

you (and others) have attacked ayn rand and it is not my duty or concern to defend anyone..the issue is..why are there no thinkers on the left...

that is what a defender of the left wonders...why dont you concentrate on that?

[Whirlaway]

@NGIAT: two excellent posts.....the Slate writerer importantly opined that NOT having a body of thinkers puts the left at a disadvantage........and Marty Pertz at the New Republic tends to agree......and it seems it is getting worse with the newer generation of progressives.......

"Ask yourself: Who is a truly influential liberal mind [on par with Niebuhr] in our culture? Whose ideas challenge and whose ideals inspire? Whose books and articles are read and passed around? There’s no one, really.” Michael Tomasky echoed this point in The American Prospect: “I’ve long had the sense, and it’s only grown since I’ve moved to Washington, that conservatives talk more about philosophy, while liberals talk more about strategy; also, that liberals generally, and young liberals in particular, are somewhat less conversant in their creed’s history and urtexts than their conservative counterparts are.”

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you (and others) have attacked ayn rand and it is not my duty or concern to defend anyone..the issue is..
?

You best not try and defend Ayn Rand as a deep thinker by those two books she had written!

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

..why are there no thinkers on the left...

?

That is a false premise.

Why are you gay?

Why do you say you are not gay when you are?

See if I start with a false premise, you would be an idiot to do anything other than make fun of my premise.

That is WTF I have done.

Are you to gay to see that?

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

that is what a defender of the left wonders...why dont you concentrate on that?

Why should anyone on the left do as you suggest. Would you do as they suggested?

Think about that brainiac and get back with me

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

You best not try and defend Ayn Rand as a deep thinker by those two books she had written!



That is a false premise.

Why are you gay?

Why do you say you are not gay when you are?

See if I start with a false premise, you would be an idiot to do anything other than make fun of my premise.

That is WTF I have done.

Are you to gay to see that?



Why should anyone on the left do as you suggest. Would you do as they suggested?

Think about that brainiac and get back with me

you are like a down syndrome child without the sweet demeanor.... so silly and so off point but also belligerent without cause and your ability to reason and comprehend and stay on issue or even address someone's point with any...ANY,,,logic renders discussion difficult

i have know this for years,,,

ITS NOT MY POINT....ITS THE WRITERS POINT AND WONDER..address it..find one

you arent gay or even a caballero...but you do stand on street corners on westheimer

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you arent gay or even a caballero...but you do stand on street corners on westheimer

As COGay would say, "Can you prove that with a link!"

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

"Can you prove that with a link!"

now you want my sausage..maybe you are gay

im leaving it to you..have to go play golf and then dinner