Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 2 of 2 Videos

herbzilla12 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - "I know that is what he is saying. I disagree."Fighting and feeding are not the same thing.A gun and bread are not the same thing.This is a fact and I deny you the right to think differently.

OneBigRetard Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - If the syptom is famine. The problem, militia stoping aid. Solution, troops sent to push away militia. Result FOOD.Syptom, famine. Problem, shortage of seeds. Solution, send seeds. Result FOODSimplistic and hypothetical, but that is my point anyway.

yablebab Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - why is there no intelligent political debate on TV anymore?

Biffle4President Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - wow...william buckley, what a condescending asshole. look at his body language and the way he speaks...he's american? i would have guessed he was a british sex offender...what a creep.at least he just got his ass handed to him in this debate. he must have hated talking to someone with so much knowledge...he had to bail himself out quite a bit.

bc9021010001 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Buckley: CIA disinformation specialist.

eharvimy Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Chomskey has few constructive ideas. He's the type that is all too common in America that likes to point at events and if there's even the slightest opportunity take it in such a light as that will allow him to raise himself up and wag his ridiculous finger at the mostly (if not totally) hard-working Americans who help run this government, he does.

511oires Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - You need to stop smoking crack, Buckley clearly is being evasive every time Chomsky backs up his statements with facts. Buckley's nauseating squirming and pencil represent the majority of conservatives when placed in front of someone who knows the facts as opposed to someone who is benefiting from the facts. Bill O'Reilly sure looks familiar now.

Nanners17 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - If doctor's treated symptoms you would be absolutely right... fortunately, doctor's treat diseases not symptoms... even in your example the diseases are very distinctively different. Therefore, your analogy is flawed. Please try again. This time using the same problem (or "disease") and showing how it can be solved equally remedied with either "troops" or "seeds"

rrvb Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Buckley learned Spanish first French second and didn't learn English until he was 7 and living in London. I don't know why he get's so much flak. I supposed because most view him as a conservative through the prism of the "O'Reily" types. Buckley himself believed them and the current administration to be a debasement of conservatism. You may not agree with him (i don't always) but you have to admit he was better than any of the commentators now from either side.

mrmarmalademan Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - William Buckley is the personification of an agent from The Ministry of Truth.

OneBigRetard Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - troops and seeds is notthe definitive distinction. More military and non-military.Troops could stop many of the deaths in Darfur as effectivly as food aid.

OneBigRetard Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Afganistan in the 80's, lots of money sent.

ferronster Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Chomsky is the classic example of using historical revisionism to create a narrative that necessarily supports your world-view. Buckley doesn't "evade" Chomsky's answers, he is picking at the loose language that Chomsky employs in this regard. If Chomsky were to pursue any of Buckley's digressions, Chomsky's logic would fail. You can see Buckley recognizes this by the very smirk on his face - and Chomsky replies with "well I believe" as he recognizes his own logical flaws. Beautiful debate.

herbzilla12 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - "Chomsky is the classic example of using historical revisionism"If he said even 1 thing that was not 100% correct you could make this claim. In reality Chomsky is the vehemently fighting to keep this right wing shit sucker from performing revisionist history100% of the statements that Buckley makes are based on lies and revisionist historyAll that Chomsky has to do to crush him is to ask for clarifications and examples. But of course All of the clarifications and examples he gives are lies

turbocarte Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Surprisingly enough, it's the other way around. I think that any ideological spin should fail easily if their (false) premises are dismantle and this is precisely what Chomsky does. Again, why not stick to facts? I think it would have been in Buckley's interests to crush Chomsky with facts (if he had any) rather than just smirking, which made him look insecure and creepy. Buckley seems to me to be the revisionist by the way (ex: Russian army in Greece, Vietnamese refugees "north and south").

herbzilla12 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - "Buckley doesn't "evade" Chomsky's answers, he is picking at the loose language that Chomsky employs in this regard."They way to PROVE this statement is the literal = of bullshit is that Buckley's statements precede Chomsky's.Buckley says something false, Chomsky calls him on it, then Buckley bring up a completely and utter unrelated point in a pathetic attempt to dodge.He NEVER picks at the the language or explores what Chomsky says, he just tries to dodge.He proves that his beliefs...

herbzilla12 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - proves that his beliefs..Have nothing to do with factsRight wing extremists like Buckley just believe what they believe, not because of facts, but despite themand ferronster is the same wayBuckley is the obviously attempting to get away with revising history, and Chomskys use of facts presents him from doing soBut if you believe hard enough in the right, you can see what ever you want to see in this videoIn a way its scary that a person could believe hard enough to ignore obvious facts

fearonism Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - A soldier is as "useful" as a bushel of wheat? Does a bushel of wheat have a family to return to, the possibility of alcoholism or drug addiction to help them make sense of war? Conservatives like Buckley make me ill. These bitch-ass motherfuckers never go to war then they want to expound on its virtues. Grab a gun and put your life on the line. Maybe then you'll see that a soldier is worth a LOT more than wheat

OneBigRetard Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Fuck nut. He did not say a soldier is the same as a bushel of wheat. He was suggesting there are circs. where either are useful.BTW. Any idea what percentage of soldiers turn to drugs and alcohol compared to civilians?What about the soldier that fucking loves it. Does that make him better than a bushel of wheat??!!!A turd argument badly made.

OneBigRetard Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - 'extremist'.Knob

herbzilla12 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - "He was suggesting there are circs. where either are useful."When he said this, Chomsky said,"never the less,"Meaning that this statement was NEVER argued against.All Chomsky said what that they are not the same thing.Chomsky keeps saying that that they are not 'Right/Wrong' just different.And he is right.

OneBigRetard Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - You are not wrong in what you say. My comment was aimed at what fearonism wrote. He makes a completely reatrded point when he asks about a soldiers family. Buckley was a soldier. His comment is ridiculous.

vulcanicoliose Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Buckley's face between 5:51 and 5:57 says everything. He was sure he had said something really smart before... but got owned in the end

vulcanicoliose Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - And let's not forget: Buskley never answered what was the difference, in the end.

gh201059 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Buckley's whole demeanor in terms of his body language and his communication gives new meaning to the word arrogance! His attitude and the way he communicates says one thing to me " Who you are speaks so loudly I don't hear a word your saying"! It is clear in this interview that Chomsky has him completely whipped by the knowledge of the facts whereby Buckley just uses his slurring and rather annoying accent to interrupt Chomsky's train of thought which he obviously fails to accomplish!