Really?

Yeah the only problem with yoru argument is that he offers a coherent analysis that gibes with some empirical evidence that many others have pointed to (like corporate control of the media). So while you might not agree wtih him or his style or even the tenets on which he bases his worldview, calling him a conspiracy theorist is a mischaracterization.

Keep in mind, BEFORE the internet, he read tons and tons of newspapers and other materials from around the world. So while you can always disagree with him, calling him a ‘kook’ is just another form of redbaiting, and we don’t like that.

As promised, I did just leave politics to spend more time with my family, but they went out… and I love to chomp on Chomsky.

One thing very fishy about Chomsky is that he has NEVER wanted to know who is behind certain conspiracies of the 20th century, the most recent being 9/11. He ridicules “conspiracies” except those that government approved. He said, and I quote, that he “doesn’t care who killed JFK” Or about any other controverasal political assassination. This from someone who proposes to be investigating language and culture at its deepest levels. Sooooo—anyone who communicates with him should feel free to call Chomsky on any conspiracy he concocts and tell him you don’t care. The way we the highly intelligent democrats kiss up to him, no wonder he considers we the citizens to be rubes.

Here ‘s reality check for you: its the mostly conservative red states which are effectively subsidized by the taxes of the mostly liberal blue states. And the overwhelmingly white rural areas are dependent on the charity of the multicultural metropolitan areas. So who are the real “parasites”?

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0507-03.htm

“True Blue Americans by Paul Krugman”

“Remember how hard New York’s elected representatives had to fight to get $20 billion in aid for the stricken city — aid that had already been promised? Well, recently Congress agreed to give farmers $180 billion in subsidies over the next decade. By the way, the population of New York City is about twice as large as America’s total farm population.”

“You’ve heard the story many times: the denizens of the heartland, we’re told, are rugged, self-reliant, committed to family; the inhabitants of the coast are whining yuppies……I’ve done some statistical comparisons using one popular definition of the heartland: the “red states” that — in an election that pitted both coasts against the middle — voted for Mr. Bush. How do they compare with the “blue states” that voted for Al Gore?”

“Certainly the heartland has no claim to superiority when it comes to family values. If anything, the red states do a bit worse than the blue states when you look at indicators of individual responsibility and commitment to family. Children in red states are more likely to be born to teenagers or unmarried mothers……per capita there were 60 percent more divorces in Montana than in New Jersey” [no surprise then that Sarah Palin's unmarried teenage preganant daughter is not an issue with these "family values" bible thumpers]

“But what’s really outrageous is the claim that the heartland is self-reliant. That grotesque farm bill, by itself, should put an end to all such assertions; but it only adds to the immense subsidies the heartland already receives from the rest of the country. As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.

And within the red states, it’s the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes. The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite. Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America’s rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.

There’s no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it’s a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations — mainly, though not entirely, red states — disproportionate representation in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the Senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.

But while this raw political clout is a fact of life, at least we can demand an end to the hypocrisy. The heartland has no special claim to represent the “real America.” And the blue states have a right to ask why, at a time when the federal government has plunged back into deficit, when essential domestic programs are under assault, a small minority of heavily subsidized Americans should feel that they are entitled to even more aid.”,/b>

IQ test = HMF

Dhoni, misidentifying me as HMF hurts worse than calling a high caste brahmin like me a sudra.

You are not the only one he has deceitfully misquoted.

Give me an example where I misquoted either of you.

Actually, the Republican policies of tax breaks for the wealthy and excessive deregulation of the economic system have a record that compares unfavorably with the democrats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

“Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.”

“Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all.”

“The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?”