At 10:35 AM -0700 9/23/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: >I don't want to drag this out, but (in a pure desire for knowledge) I >would be interested in any refutation of Chomsky that doesn't resort to >*ad hominem* remarks ... because I haven't seen one (a refutation, that >is) that hews to the same level of rigor he employs. i would be interested in that as well. but that would go into the category of a "debate", which the U.S. govt and corporate media are very reluctant to do. the issue of "foriegn policy" in the U.S. is completely autocratic, totalitarian, seeing as both republicans and democrats support the exact same policies. in fact U.S. foriegn policy has pretty much gone unchanged since WWII. which leads me to believe that foriegn policy pretty much runs itself....with little pushes towards more extreme violent methods (Kissinger and Reagan eras) here and there depending on what they can get away with. the best thing for that is to never allow any sort of debate on the issue or at least to narrow it considerably. "if the majority of the U.S. population had any knowledge of what is being done in their name, they would be appalled" Chomsky >The usual line is to >refer to him as a "corrupting influence," or as a "traitor," or somesuch, >which doesn't really cut it, for me. you forgot "self hating jew", "holocaust denier" and "supporter of the Kmer Rouge" ~json
