var

>>>>> The lack of government per-se would not mean an end to the
>>>>> market for arms.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say it would. But I believe the actions of the US
>>>> government have increased the amount and severity of weapons
>>>> in the world 100-fold beyond what was necessary, even without
>>>> any governance change of the kind we are discussing.
>>>
>>> this is putting the cart before the horse. You know that if
>>> I write to my congresspeople askign them to curtail arms
>>> sales, they'll come back with the "but people will lose jobs
>>> argument" in other words, they can't turn their backs on the
>>> people that funded their campaigns. In other words, the
>>> government is doing what it's doing largely at the behest of
>>> the corporations.
>>
>>> // what if we replaced the word "corporations" in your
>>> statement, with the phrase "the people who work for defense
>>> contractors". And what if we replaced that phrase with the
>>> word "people". What changes?
>
>> How about we replace it with "a few rich and powerful people,
>> who won't feel the negative effects thereof." There, that's
>> more accurate.

>Question: If they won't feel the effects, why do they care?

I said the negative effects. they do care about feeling the positive
effects (i.e. money).

>> > Chomsky is a nitwit. He doesn't give references,
>>
>> there are pages of footnotes at the end of every chapter of
>> every book he's written. (well, maybe except for the
>> interview books).
>
>I've never seen a reference in material I've read on the web.
>Perhaps much of that was interviews.
>

Anything besides the Faurisson thing is nitwitty? (And I'm still not
entirely convinced that, given all the facts, he'd come up guilty on that
one).

>> > and I'm fairly certain his fact-checking is tabloid-
>> > quality.
>>
>> Yeah most of his facts come from obscure, highly
>> disreputable sources such as the New York Times, the
>> Wall Street Journal, etc.
>
>Actually, the NYT is highly disreputable. Their contributors
>have been known to flat make stuff up.
>

How often?

cb

>>>>> I didn't say it would. But I believe the actions of the US
>>>>> government have increased the amount and severity of weapons
>>>>> in the world 100-fold beyond what was necessary, even without
>>>>> any governance change of the kind we are discussing.
>>>>
>>>> this is putting the cart before the horse. You know that if
>>>> I write to my congresspeople askign them to curtail arms
>>>> sales, they'll come back with the "but people will lose jobs
>>>> argument" in other words, they can't turn their backs on the
>>>> people that funded their campaigns. In other words, the
>>>> government is doing what it's doing largely at the behest of
>>>> the corporations.
>>>
>>>> // what if we replaced the word "corporations" in your
>>>> statement, with the phrase "the people who work for defense
>>>> contractors". And what if we replaced that phrase with the
>>>> word "people". What changes?
>>
>>> How about we replace it with "a few rich and powerful people,
>>> who won't feel the negative effects thereof." There, that's
>>> more accurate.
>
>>Question: If they won't feel the effects, why do they care?
>
> I said the negative effects. they do care about feeling the
> positive effects (i.e. money).

Are you saying they care about gaining money but not about
loosing it?

>>> > Chomsky is a nitwit. He doesn't give references,
>>>
>>> there are pages of footnotes at the end of every chapter of
>>> every book he's written. (well, maybe except for the
>>> interview books).
>>
>>I've never seen a reference in material I've read on the web.
>>Perhaps much of that was interviews.
>
> Anything besides the Faurisson thing is nitwitty? (And I'm
> still not entirely convinced that, given all the facts, he'd
> come up guilty on that one).

He's just an ego-maniacal turd; what can I tell you? I'd
say he should stick to linguistics, but his work there is
equally unimpressive.

>>> > and I'm fairly certain his fact-checking is tabloid-
>>> > quality.
>>>
>>> Yeah most of his facts come from obscure, highly
>>> disreputable sources such as the New York Times, the
>>> Wall Street Journal, etc.
>>
>>Actually, the NYT is highly disreputable. Their contributors
>>have been known to flat make stuff up.
>
> How often?

More than any other paper I know of, though to be fair they
are probably subjected to more scrutiny.

They gave Kevin Mitnick a miserable time. There was a huge
scandal in 2003, the details of which escape me at the
moment. One only need read Engadget to see how completely
lost they are when it comes to technology reporting.

But IMO the writing's just generally obnoxious.

-Carl