syd syside Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Frank Zappa on Crossfire 1986 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9856_xv8gc Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo Noam Chomsky vs. William F Buckley on the Vietnam War : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbTxLmbCoo4 Mr. Rogers speaking to the US Senate : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q John Adams defending the British in court : http://youtu.be/Iyrv5emDC1Y Carl Sagan attempts to debate with a creationist : http://youtu.be/Ar6Pd8TU3Dg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 Welch versus Joseph McCarthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 This is more of an interview, but it borders on philosophical debate... 1977: Gzowski interviews Iggy Pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 Paul Keating, Australian Labor party politician http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnwn4q_ZE9c http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=NdAoQvqh7eY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC1uGbk6e8M Christopher Hitchens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR1uorQWNDg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 one of my favorite videos of all time [youtubehd]lYeoTFbLo_Y[/youtubehd] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr_Nova Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I'm listening to Boyd Rice and Bob Larsen duke it out right now. Audio only, but pretty entertaining: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwx4DV3Tkw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethel Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeroHour Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 worth it for just seeing how bat shit crazy this bill donohue guy is [youtubehd]H7aiBbA8_Fg[/youtubehd] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 anytime Hitchens veers outside of how retarded monotheism is, it hurts....but otherwise Hitch is pure gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist. There is such a watershed of Chomsky that I will in no way ever dismiss him nor his sincerity, but I agree with Hitchens that his views in the last decade or so seem irrelevant and ideologically narrow-minded. It's as if Chomsky is so developed in political views he can't adjust them to realities of the present day world. In other words, I feel like with Hitchens I could absorb an opinion of his I didn't agree with (say his arguments for the 2003 Iraq invasion) because it would be backed with an array of historical tidbits, moral arguments, etc. I could hear an argument, learn something interesting, but still disagree. With Chomsky I just feel like he re-hashes the same broad critiques of American foreign policy and capitalism, even if it's regarding a subject with little to do with either. I feel like skipping through his speeches all the time, because I already have an idea of what he's going to say. quite superficial I'm sure. I plan on listening to the entire Chomsky vid btw, I always try to examine and listen to a healthy amount of criticism of opinions I agree with and intellectuals I respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm a huge-ish fan of both of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist. There is such a watershed of Chomsky that I will in no way ever dismiss him nor his sincerity, but I agree with Hitchens that his views in the last decade or so seem irrelevant and ideologically narrow-minded. It's as if Chomsky is so developed in political views he can't adjust them to realities of the present day world. In other words, I feel like with Hitchens I could absorb an opinion of his I didn't agree with (say his arguments for the 2003 Iraq invasion) because it would be backed with an array of historical tidbits, moral arguments, etc. I could hear an argument, learn something interesting, but still disagree. With Chomsky I just feel like he re-hashes the same broad critiques of American foreign policy and capitalism, even if it's regarding a subject with little to do with either. I feel like skipping through his speeches all the time, because I already have an idea of what he's going to say. i think he gets repetitive simply because of the massive scope of his material...if anything hes overpublished, tries to attack too much. but his explanation of anti-authoritarian attitudes in criticism is spot on and i try to remind myself of it daily. basically the burden of proof is on authority to prove the need for its existence, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Also, I think that Chomsky arguments usually as equally interesting and valid as Hitchens, it's just Hitchens is more often than not far way, way more entertaining and gripping. Hell, it's really Hitchslaps versus, uh, Chomksmacks...Chomstrikes? Chomskeets? :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Mr. Rogers speaking to the US Senate : [media][/media] Real moving one, I listen to this on occasion to put myself in a better mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I found Patrice not only hilarious but actually pretty consistent in his argument. Usually comedians or other entertainers, even when I'm on their side, get a bit too ad-hoc or hypocritical. I think he's quite on point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist. I'm sure he was, but as soon as he allied himself with the psychopaths otherwise known as the 'crazies' (quote from former Reagan official Ray Mcgovern) he was completely toast. You don't come back from that shit. Granted whatever his work was that predated his turn to the stupid & very dark side is valid and entertaining. I just have absolutely zero respect for him promoting the war on terror especially the war on Iraq, and it left a black mark on his career that eclipsed pretty much everything else he did in my eyes until his death. At least Chomsky is consistent and never let his egoistic thirst for blood get in the way of his ideals. Repetitive, boring, whatever you want to call him, he's just not cunt who got on board with one of the worst, tragic and depressing periods of American imperialism . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist. There is such a watershed of Chomsky that I will in no way ever dismiss him nor his sincerity, but I agree with Hitchens that his views in the last decade or so seem irrelevant and ideologically narrow-minded. It's as if Chomsky is so developed in political views he can't adjust them to realities of the present day world. In other words, I feel like with Hitchens I could absorb an opinion of his I didn't agree with (say his arguments for the 2003 Iraq invasion) because it would be backed with an array of historical tidbits, moral arguments, etc. I could hear an argument, learn something interesting, but still disagree. With Chomsky I just feel like he re-hashes the same broad critiques of American foreign policy and capitalism, even if it's regarding a subject with little to do with either. I feel like skipping through his speeches all the time, because I already have an idea of what he's going to say. i think he gets repetitive simply because of the massive scope of his material...if anything hes overpublished, tries to attack too much. but his explanation of anti-authoritarian attitudes in criticism is spot on and i try to remind myself of it daily. basically the burden of proof is on authority to prove the need for its existence, not the other way around. spot on, and as much as Hitchens tried to explain why he thought killing almost 1 million arabs to stop WMDs was valid he never came out with anything remotely convincing to a critical thinker in regards to the war on terror or islam. It always hinged on the sort of knee jerkish mentality of 'they want to kill us' so we should kill them out of 'self defense' which to me is borderline child-like. I find it sort of insulting to call Chomsky's views ideologically narrow minded, in my mind he's one of the most principled and consistent writers on American Foreign policy who has simply never caved to modern propaganda (in the same way Hitchens has, repeatedly). If that's what being 'narrow minded' is, count me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I will say that, intellectually, I trust Chomsky about 1000x more than Hitchens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Glenn Greenwald VS David Rivkin David Rivkin's best argument for why they need to violate the consitution to spy on people is that they are only using it for 'people who talk to terrorists' lol and then he strawmans Greenwald repeatedly by saying that George Bush isn't spying on you! That's absurd to think the president is reading your e-mails! Greenwald Vs Israel die-hard Elliot Spitzer Greenwald Vs David Frumanother dangerous propagandist, David Frum tries to reasonably and intellectually cloak why torture is ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 7, 2012 Author Share Posted December 7, 2012 here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist. There is such a watershed of Chomsky that I will in no way ever dismiss him nor his sincerity, but I agree with Hitchens that his views in the last decade or so seem irrelevant and ideologically narrow-minded. It's as if Chomsky is so developed in political views he can't adjust them to realities of the present day world. In other words, I feel like with Hitchens I could absorb an opinion of his I didn't agree with (say his arguments for the 2003 Iraq invasion) because it would be backed with an array of historical tidbits, moral arguments, etc. I could hear an argument, learn something interesting, but still disagree. With Chomsky I just feel like he re-hashes the same broad critiques of American foreign policy and capitalism, even if it's regarding a subject with little to do with either. I feel like skipping through his speeches all the time, because I already have an idea of what he's going to say. i think he gets repetitive simply because of the massive scope of his material...if anything hes overpublished, tries to attack too much. but his explanation of anti-authoritarian attitudes in criticism is spot on and i try to remind myself of it daily. basically the burden of proof is on authority to prove the need for its existence, not the other way around. spot on, and as much as Hitchens tried to explain why he thought killing almost 1 million arabs to stop WMDs was valid he never came out with anything remotely convincing to a critical thinker in regards to the war on terror or islam. It always hinged on the sort of knee jerkish mentality of 'they want to kill us' so we should kill them out of 'self defense' which to me is borderline child-like. I find it sort of insulting to call Chomsky's views ideologically narrow minded, in my mind he's one of the most principled and consistent writers on American Foreign policy who has simply never caved to modern propaganda (in the same way Hitchens has, repeatedly). If that's what being 'narrow minded' is, count me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I've seen this video already a few times, and it makes me cringe and wince more every time i watch it. To describe it as disgusting is an understatement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.