Scientific ignorance runs deep among the general population of the US, sadly even among those who represent us in Congress (most of whom are not scientists in the first place). And this is the case on both sides of the aisle. How many US Congresscritters are creationists, for example?
The admiral’s alternative answer ‘We put the humvees and tanks on one end, the F16s and Apaches on the other, works out pretty well!’
[quote]So clearly Chomsky is making a statement against that type of behavior.[/quote]That is one way his comment might be interpreted. It also might be interpreted as an instruction for doing exactly what he is speaking about - “That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”". Color me cynical if I take that meaning for his words and intent.[quote]Even though you generally post explosive rhetoric of a libertarian or right-wing nature,[/quote]Again, your spinn or desired interpretation. I’m a conservative. Nothing more, nothing less. Have been since my pre-teen years. I’m comfortable with that consistency. I do not change the words of quoted text and I make a sincere effort to post in context. If the words strike ‘you’ or others as “explosive rhetoric” then you are choosing to take that view based on your pre-determined perspective. Your choice.[quote]…it’s still possible that you’d quote a left-winger like Chomsky because you agree with him on that particular statement,[/quote]The quote - and I thank you for providing the final bit. I might add that - is posted for the reasons I offer in my earlier comment. I think its an instruction quote. Instructions on how to lull malleable minds into as false sense of freedom while they are actually being controlled by ‘soft manipulation.’ (my term).[quote]…which is why I ask. Otherwise, you’re quoting him with the intention of painting him as a fascist, which is a deliberate distortion of his statements and views.[/quote]Interesting question that last comment brings up - If one offers advice and instruction on the ways and means of establishing and maintaining a society where the populace is lulled by coercive and almost subconscious means into a false state of freedom, is that “leader” (loose term) a “fascist”? Or is he/she merely a tool of other “fascists”?
Personally I regard such persons as nothing more than propagandists. Useful tools of the hierarchy. Trained and skilled in the use of language, pictures and speech -NLP? - in the mental manipulation of targeted audiences. They have their place in the repertoire of those who would subvert or change an established or competitive system. Of course, they are the first to be removed when their “leaders” actually come to power and their usefulness is finished. They then represent a possible challenge to the system they helped to come about. The graveyards of "revolution: around the world are littered with their bodies. Also the forests and fields.
Hope this helps… 
Your opinion may well be different - and I’m OK with that.
There is no other way to interpret this statement, except that you took it out of context. If you’ve read anything from Chomsky then it becomes blindingly obvious that he is against curbing the limits of political media and debate in a free society. Since you are now aware of the context and still arguing that it is “subject to interpretation”, you are now deliberately distorting the truth.
In fact, it seems that you do agree with Chomsky on this subject, as you are opposed to the same fascist-type curbs on what is acceptable political speech and debate.
Again, your spinn or desired interpretation. I’m a conservative. Nothing more, nothing less. Have been since my pre-teen years. I’m comfortable with that consistency. I do not change the words of quoted text and I make a sincere effort to post in context. If the words strike ‘you’ or others as “explosive rhetoric” then you are choosing to take that view based on your pre-determined perspective. Your choice.[/quote]
Are you seriously claiming that you don’t regularly post one-sided, missing context, evidence-less posts that generally deprecate left-wingers (or even middle-of-the-roaders) in an effort to make the left look unsound, ridiculous, and occasionally evil and freedom-hating?
Rhetoric being explosive is entirely based on whether the audience feels it is explosive, and in this audience, if we took a poll of how many people who read your political stuff thought you posted “explosive rhetoric of a libertarian or right wing nature” on a regular basis, I’m gonna guess we’d be in the 75-85% range. It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of the audience, and as this is a description of appearance, that makes it a fact.
For example, if you said my forumosa picture gives the impression that I’m a stoned loser, and if most people agreed, then there would be no arguing it, the perception is clear.
Never ever follow the capricious whim of the mob. Most audiences are mendacious dullards who couldn’t interpret their way out of a paper bag. Sagacity is not skin deep, but manifest in the depths and folds of character.
Response from Hank Johnson:
“I wasn’t suggesting that the island of Guam would literally tip over I was using a metaphor to say that with the addition of 8,000 Marines and their dependents – an additional 80,000 people during peak construction on the tiny island with a population of 180,000 – could be a tipping point which could adversely affect the island’s fragile ecosystem and could overburden its stressed infrastructure. Having traveled to Guam last year, I saw firsthand how this beautiful – but vulnerable island – could easily become overburdened, and I was simply voicing my concerns that the addition of that many people could tip the delicate balance and do permanent harm to Guam.”
Lovely. I agree with your sentament, but I also really enjoy your language.
Anyway, on topic, or off topic rather, but on the off topic topic–ehem (so much for beautiful word smithing) I agree that the Chompsky quote is out of context and thus misinterpreted. I agree that Chompsky was not a propagandist. And I’m an independent, but more conservative than many on these boards. Not that there’s anything wrong with being conservative, or not being conservative, or being independent.
[quote=“elburro”]Response from Hank Johnson:
“I wasn’t suggesting that the island of Guam would literally tip over I was using a metaphor to say that with the addition of 8,000 Marines and their dependents – an additional 80,000 people during peak construction on the tiny island with a population of 180,000 – could be a tipping point which could adversely affect the island’s fragile ecosystem and could overburden its stressed infrastructure. Having traveled to Guam last year, I saw firsthand how this beautiful – but vulnerable island – could easily become overburdened, and I was simply voicing my concerns that the addition of that many people could tip the delicate balance and do permanent harm to Guam.”
corner.nationalreview.com/post/? … I1MWFhM2U=[/quote]
Yeah, but he use the word “capsize.” “Tip over and capsize.” And his initial question was no where near as coherent as his explanation. IMO, the explanation is damage contrloe by someone who’s good at his/her job.
Lovely. I agree with your sentament, but I also really enjoy your language.
Anyway, on topic, or off topic rather, but on the off topic topic–ehem (so much for beautiful word smithing) I agree that the Chompsky quote is out of context and thus misinterpreted. I agree that Chompsky was not a propagandist. And I’m an independent, but more conservative than many on these boards. Not that there’s anything wrong with being conservative, or not being conservative, or being independent.[/quote]
not dead
I will only say one thing : Guam is not more than any other Banana Republic out there.
Seeing this guy’s performance = 100’s of election add’s with empty messages I saw when visiting Guam.
Chamoros remember? Not tooooooooooodaaaaaaaaaaay … maaaaaaaaybe tomorrow 
PS, not criticism on Guam or its people (in General…) , but this politician “performance” was so flagrant equal how the locals approached things
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote]So clearly Chomsky is making a statement against that type of behavior.[/quote]That is one way his comment might be interpreted. It also might be interpreted as an instruction for doing exactly what he is speaking about - “That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”". Color me cynical if I take that meaning for his words and intent.[quote]Even though you generally post explosive rhetoric of a libertarian or right-wing nature,[/quote]Again, your spinn or desired interpretation. I’m a conservative. Nothing more, nothing less. Have been since my pre-teen years. I’m comfortable with that consistency. I do not change the words of quoted text and I make a sincere effort to post in context. If the words strike ‘you’ or others as “explosive rhetoric” then you are choosing to take that view based on your pre-determined perspective. Your choice.[quote]…it’s still possible that you’d quote a left-winger like Chomsky because you agree with him on that particular statement,[/quote]The quote - and I thank you for providing the final bit. I might add that - is posted for the reasons I offer in my earlier comment. I think its an instruction quote. Instructions on how to lull malleable minds into as false sense of freedom while they are actually being controlled by ‘soft manipulation.’ (my term).[quote]…which is why I ask. Otherwise, you’re quoting him with the intention of painting him as a fascist, which is a deliberate distortion of his statements and views.[/quote]Interesting question that last comment brings up - If one offers advice and instruction on the ways and means of establishing and maintaining a society where the populace is lulled by coercive and almost subconscious means into a false state of freedom, is that “leader” (loose term) a “fascist”? Or is he/she merely a tool of other “fascists”?
Personally I regard such persons as nothing more than propagandists. Useful tools of the hierarchy. Trained and skilled in the use of language, pictures and speech -NLP? - in the mental manipulation of targeted audiences. They have their place in the repertoire of those who would subvert or change an established or competitive system. Of course, they are the first to be removed when their “leaders” actually come to power and their usefulness is finished. They then represent a possible challenge to the system they helped to come about. The graveyards of "revolution: around the world are littered with their bodies. Also the forests and fields.
Hope this helps…
Your opinion may well be different - and I’m OK with that.[/quote]
It is not a question of opinion. It is matter of historical record that Chomsky devoted a good portion of his life to helping people understand how they are manipulated by the media, business, schools etc. This is grade school stuff. To suggest that he was giving advice on HOW to manipulate people when clearly what he was doing was attempting to teach them how NOT to be manipulated is well…
Frankly, it puts you on par with your esteemed Mr. Johnson. (He is American btw, I wonder, are ALL americans so stupid?)
You either didn’t understand Chomsky’s point, or you were making a deliberate attempt to distort it. I’m guessing you didn’t understand it, till just now.
The question now is, will you take the quote out of your signature line, and if no what in god’s name do you mean by it?
Thanks, TC, I got a good chuckle out of that video. The guy reminds me of Dan Quayle and Dubya actually. I guess there are a few dim bulbs on both sides of the Christmas tree.
it will be a relief to see the hills spring up in the middle of the island once 8,000 marines from the 3rd marine expeditionary force and their families and hangers-on decamp from Camp Foster to Guam. Bring on them hills! Cycling is boring compared to Taiwan.
DB -
Pretty stupid comment, IMO.
I recommend cutting this guy some slack. From what I have found out he is pretty ate up with Hep C. His liver is shot and it looks like his renal functions are about to blow out also. I think this is seriously affecting his mental and speech functions.
At this point, he is just being used as a voting tool by Pelosi and crew. He should be at home with his family or in a care facility trying to save whats left of his life and time left.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]DB -
Pretty stupid comment, IMO.
I recommend cutting this guy some slack. From what I have found out he is pretty ate up with Hep C. His liver is shot and it looks like his renal functions are about to blow out also. I think this is seriously affecting his mental and speech functions.
At this point, he is just being used as a voting tool by Pelosi and crew. He should be at home with his family or in a care facility trying to save whats left of his life and time left.[/quote]
Ah, I see. Well, that leaves all the dim bulbs on your side of the tree then, doesn’t it?
[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]DB -
Pretty stupid comment, IMO.
I recommend cutting this guy some slack. From what I have found out he is pretty ate up with Hep C. His liver is shot and it looks like his renal functions are about to blow out also. I think this is seriously affecting his mental and speech functions.
At this point, he is just being used as a voting tool by Pelosi and crew. He should be at home with his family or in a care facility trying to save whats left of his life and time left.[/quote]
Ah, I see. Well, that leaves all the dim bulbs on your side of the tree then, doesn’t it?[/quote]
Go ahead an attack. You got the magic shield…right?
Sorry. Didn’t mean to imply that he WAS dead. You’ll just have to forgive some of my crap writing these days. I’m tired.
The main thing going through my mind when watching that video was that it had to be something from The Onion. In fact, I’d say that video is more Onion than the Onion.