1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky

1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 6:15:32 PM)
I thought the politicos here might enjoy this blast from the past: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk

pollux -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 8:20:01 PM)
There's one of Buckley and Gore Vidal out there that's pretty good, too. And they've been suing each other for the last 40 years over it [:D]

Level -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 8:38:18 PM)
Thanks for the heads-up on that, pollux. [:D] And good to see you posting again.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 8:41:04 PM)
38 years and Noam Chomsky still can't give a straight answer to theis question; Do you believe in private property?

Level -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 8:48:14 PM)
Buckley and Vidal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AzjZrtqCIw And here in the same room, it gets nasty - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6696423256021555803

Level -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 8:49:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy 38 years and Noam Chomsky still can't give a straight answer to theis question; Do you believe in private property? I have to admit, I tried reading one of Chomsky's books, and got a headache lol. Vidal, on the other hand, is a far better and more interesting writer. Buckley, I've yet to read.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 8:55:17 PM)
Of the three... Buckley is the only one with a sense enough to throw in some comic relief.

Level -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 9:01:17 PM)
A better vid clip of Buckley/Vidal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li73RRLEyW8

Level -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 9:02:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Of the three... Buckley is the only one with a sense enough to throw in some comic relief. I'd say Vidal has a quite good sense of humor; Chomsky either hides his well, or has less of it than I have hair on my head.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 9:39:06 PM)
Re: Buckley v Vidal I see Buckley as less conservative and more fascistic. He clearly supports an undemocratic, pro-corporate, pro-aggression position. He doesn't favor self-rule, he favors control - people under the thumb of himself (rhetorically) and his buddies (in political actuality). Vidal is not liberal. He is pro-democracy, anti-corporate, and anti-aggression. Vidal is more circumspect. I take that to mean that his general philosophy is to first do no harm to anyone else.

NorthernGent -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/8/2007 9:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level I thought the politicos here might enjoy this blast from the past: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk I watched this a while ago. That Buckley bloke - what a wanker. He's not in Chomsky's league, so he resorts to talking over him and generally trying to disrupt the discussion. Sound ideas and supporting facts from Chomsky as per usual, 'shame about the other bloke.

Level -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/9/2007 6:40:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Re: Buckley v Vidal I see Buckley as less conservative and more fascistic. He clearly supports an undemocratic, pro-corporate, pro-aggression position. He doesn't favor self-rule, he favors control - people under the thumb of himself (rhetorically) and his buddies (in political actuality). Vidal is not liberal. He is pro-democracy, anti-corporate, and anti-aggression. Vidal is more circumspect. I take that to mean that his general philosophy is to first do no harm to anyone else. On Vidal: "Although frequently identified with Democratic causes and personalities, Vidal has written: "[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." --from Wikipedia He also seems to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist, talking about how FDR goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, and that the government at the very least allowed 911.

juliaoceania -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/9/2007 7:15:25 AM)
People always talk over Noam Chomsky when they try to debate him, and then when they cannot debunk him they go for the "Those people that are against us, we know you love them Noam" approach... Interesting to say the least BTW, it is always interesting to hear someone put forward their ideas using a rational choice materialist paradigm, and Noam is a master of it Edited for my use of a homophone... ugh

Level -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/9/2007 7:18:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania People always talk over Noam Chomsky when they try to debate him, and then when they cannot debunk him they go for the "Those people that are against us, we know you love them Noam" approach... Interesting to say the least BTW, it is always interesting to here someone put forward their ideas using a rational choice materialist paradigm, and Noam is a master of it Now julia, I'm going to have to google that paradigm thingamajig........ that's one reason me and Professor C never meshed...... too much googling, or grabbing a dictionary.

juliaoceania -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/9/2007 7:23:13 AM)
laughing level... I remember watching Manufacturing Consent my first year of anthro classes, it was very eye opening to me... one of the more difficult courses that I have ever had... deconstructing how people argue their theories... punching holes in their theories. Noam uses rational choice often, and it is very hard to poke holes in. It would be worthwhile to look it up

Level -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/9/2007 7:56:25 AM)
Okay, julia, let's see: looking up the rational choice part, I came up with: "In particular, it assumes that the rational decision is always the decision that will maximise gain and minimise pain for each individual." And for materialist paradigm: "Working-in-order-to-eat (giving-in-order-to-receive) implies a materialist paradigm in which existence is seen as being substantially physical and its resources limited. It implies a "dog eat dog" world, "red in tooth and claw," in which all facets of life are conditioned by economic considerations and governed by hierarchies of power that regulate the distribution of scarce resources. It is a world where we end up either as wage slavers or as wage slaves." Does any of that fall into what Chomsky espouses? We keep this up, I'll be able to write a "Chomsky for Dummies" book...... [X(]

Quarry -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/9/2007 8:07:34 AM)
Chomsky's said for decades that resources (i.e. oil, land, water, etc.) should be owned by the public and businesses by the people who work in them. The point here is to prevent power from accumulating in the hands of a small group of people. So Wal-Mart couldn't deny people work and oil production would be controled by everyone instead of by Exxon and Texaco. As for the ownership of smaller stuff - say, your car, a house, jewelry - I don't recall ever having read anything he had to say on that subject. But then, he's usually concerned with big issues like why country A is at war with country B, so it's not surprising that stuff like that doesn't often come up. I suspect he'd say that as long as individuals couldn't accumulate so much wealth that it gave them power over others, then personal property would be fine. And I'm absolutely certain he'd say that it's impossible to work out ahead of time all the details of the society you intend to create; you have to try things, see if they work, then try other things, etc.

popeye1250 -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/9/2007 8:43:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Re: Buckley v Vidal I see Buckley as less conservative and more fascistic. He clearly supports an undemocratic, pro-corporate, pro-aggression position. He doesn't favor self-rule, he favors control - people under the thumb of himself (rhetorically) and his buddies (in political actuality). Vidal is not liberal. He is pro-democracy, anti-corporate, and anti-aggression. Vidal is more circumspect. I take that to mean that his general philosophy is to first do no harm to anyone else. Unless one owns stock in a company, how can one be "pro-corporate?"

sophia37 -> RE: 1969: William F. Buckley vs Noam Chomsky (6/9/2007 11:04:26 AM)
What I liked about going to that spot and watching it was, there were a bunch of other spots by Noam over to the left of the screen. I most definetly watched a few of them. And even the one by Chavez promoting his book. All very interesting and informative for sure. Interesting, in that you can watch Noam Chomsky debate and age, all in one sitting. I can definetly see some slippage in his recent casts. The debate with Buckley I thought was excellent. Damn is Chomsky good! That was super super good to watch. For that alone I thank you for your post. But what I think is informative, at least to me, is what I got from Chavez advertising Chomsky's book. Truthfully the caption said he was quoting Chomsky, yet the way he said it, sounded like he wasnt. Strange. Also, believe it or not, I felt a tinge of annoyance when listening to him. Now tell me what you think of this. To me, having Chavez tell me as an American, what it is I should be doing or how awful it is our kids watch video games, is like a white person calling someone a nigger. To me, you can only call someone a nigger if you are black. Do you get what I mean? I fail to see where someone who doesnt live in America, can come along and instruct us on our day to day behaivor. They may even be right! But that doesnt mean I will accept them at their word. So to hear Chavez telling me our kids shouldnt watch videos, while all the while I know damn well HIS kids are watching and playing videos as well, ...well, that just irked me instead of gaining my support for the man. As long as politicians from any country play us against them, we will never come to a clear understanding of anything. I guess what I got from Chavez might be, I guess anyone can pick up a book and get ideas from it that the author was not intending to promote.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875