It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by longlostbrother
Is any of it not true? I am just tired of people who are just using the wave of public discontent for book sales.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
Originally posted by openminded2011
Noam Chomsky, staunch anti capitalist, is worth 2 million. That puts him in the top ten percent of the country. And a guy who rails against the tax system as "using the poor to pay off the rich" isnt afraid to shelter that money in capitalistic tax havens.
www.outsidethebeltway.com...
Congrats for digging up a ridiculous (and seven year old) smear on Chomsky:
leiterreports.typepad.com...
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by longlostbrother
Originally posted by openminded2011
Noam Chomsky, staunch anti capitalist, is worth 2 million. That puts him in the top ten percent of the country. And a guy who rails against the tax system as "using the poor to pay off the rich" isnt afraid to shelter that money in capitalistic tax havens.
www.outsidethebeltway.com...
Congrats for digging up a ridiculous (and seven year old) smear on Chomsky:
leiterreports.typepad.com...
7 year old smear? Wow, if he was worth $2 million then, his net worth today is probably close to $5 million or more! And just that much more rich than the people that worship him.
/TOA
In January I sued President Barack Obama over Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, strip them of due process and hold them in military facilities, including offshore penal colonies. Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.
It is fine if people want to hold onto outdated concepts but stop standing in the way of people who don't wish to.
You're free to be who you are let me be who I am. It's not sinister like you are projecting.
As for the rest of your argument it boils down to you not having enough faith in your own God so you feel threatened by other religions to the point of becoming a zealot full of hate for the imaginary boogeyman you call Islam.
This accounts for the overwhelming prominence of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam. Its dominance is the direct result of the occasionalist metaphysics, the consequence collapse of epistemology, and the voluntaristic ethics proffered by the Asharites. Its prominence comes from a process of elimination. Fiq, or jurisprudence, is all that is left. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 75, ISI books
Many wonder why democracy did not develop indigenously in the Muslim world and ask whether it can still develop today. The answer is that, so long as the Ash’arite (or Hanbalite) worldview is regnant, democratic development cannot succeed for the simple reason that this view posits the primacy of power over the primacy of reason. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 128, ISI books
The primacy of reason, theologically and philosophically understood, is the prerequisite for democracy. Otherwise, what could serve as its legitimating source? Along with it must come metaphysical support for natural law, which provides the foundations not only for modern science but also for the development of constitutional government. Therein lies the source for the “laws of nature and of natures God,” on which constitutional edifices are built. The primacy of power in Sunni Islamic thought undermines a similar prospect. If one does not allow for the existence of secondary causes, one cannot develop natural law. If one cannot develop natural law, one cannot conceive of a constitutional political order in which man, through his reason, creates laws to govern himself and behave freely. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 129, ISI books
No. Literally I mean, okay you stand here I'm moving forward.
How is that making your existence futile?
Don't get divorced, don't wear red, don't become friends with gay people or people living together raising a family out of wedlock, don't befriend any muslims... but leave me the hell alone to do as I like thank-you kindly... I like gay people and muslims and my son was born out of wedlock I even like gay muslims.
My thinking along with Chomsky's along with other Socialist Libertarians along with whatever other demon you have cooked up in your head, are no threat to you!
Originally posted by The Old American
Don't hide behind "fluffy" terms. If you mean Communism, then man up and say Communism. I know what it means and how it differs from Socialism.
There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism. Interestingly, socialism emerged as feudalism began to breakdown. Communist movements originally developed among the conservative feudal peasants and craftsmen. Many of the guilds from feudal times were workers' organizations that lived communal lifestyles. As the industrial revolutions began these communal lifestyles became jeopardized.
Anarchist and Communist ideology were very similar at this point. In the 1700s, both of these movements were dominated by peasant farmers and guilds.
Labor "owning the means of production" is the same as saying "no property rights". Everything is owned by the community as a whole. Sure, individuals can own "stuff", like shoes, chairs, TVs, etc. But they don't own property. Nor do they own farms, farm animals, or crops. That is all also owned by the collective. An individual can't open a store. The now infamous "you didn't build that" speech becomes terrifyingly real because under Communism (and Socialism) you can't build that.
Myth #1: Socialists want to take away your property
This myth confuses private property with personal property. When socialists talk about the abolition of private property, they are referring to the socialization of the means of production—the resources and equipment that create wealth. Working people do not own this type of property—which is why we have to work to survive.
Right now, the wealth of the 1,000 billionaires is equal to that of the 3.5 billion poorest people on the planet. In order to provide everyone with more, that wealth must be commonly owned, and not the property of those few capitalists.
Socialists have no interest in taking away one’s home, car or individual items intended for personal use. In reality, as the foreclosure crisis has shown, under capitalism the banks own most of this property as well—and will take it away as they please.
The system we have now is the best of both worlds (well, it could use a little less of the "Socialism" and more of the "Capitalism"). A person gets to own property and own a business, and the government gets their piece of the pie. We just need the government to get out of the wage fixing business and let workers and businesses negotiate terms like they could before FDR stuck his filthy paws into the mix.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
What's not true is the concept that Chomsky is against personal wealth or capitalism.
Originally posted by dontreally
oh shut up...
Anytime this swindler has to comment on political events, its a complete obfuscation of what's actually happening.
He's one of those radicals who likes to ignore the threat of Islamism; why?? Because Islamism stands to destabilize western society - and Chomsky and his ilk want that.
You should not presume that because you prefer to display your mastery of the English language that you posses a superior intellect; you do not.
It is well and good for a person speaking among academia to play verbal tango, I see no need here.
To my mind, matters of current social and political issues as well as ideologies are far too dire to play childish games of who has the bigger... intellect.
I prefer direct. If you choose not to see the toxic effect of American and Israeli policy on the rest of the world I'm not sure how it is you can say that I'm the one with the interpretive challenge
In the 11th century the Romans slaughtered most of the Muslims and Jews when they seized Jerusalem.
You do realize that capitalism can't exist without oversight?