big difficulties with any dialogue of this scope is the fact that people are often defining terms and concepts differently. It seems to me from some of your posts and comments that our definitions of the "NWO" are not aligned and this will, in spite of efforts to review links from each other, lead to impasse. Unless or until an agreed definition of terms/concept can be hashed, the back and forth may just prove to be frustrating. Chomsky is more nuanced than solely fitting the labels of anarchist and/or libertarian socialist, and libertarian socialism does not in my view fit perfectly in the NWO, as I believe it is defined. You do. We disagree on that.
Please do not translate for me what I mean by intellectual integrity. Your translation is incorrect. Just b/c his integrity is one thing I assert does not logically mean that it is the only thing I could mention to support the man's credibility.
If you want a more specific objection I have against Dershowitz, I would start with the fact that he is historically inaccurate (if not disingenuous) on the topic and argues using logical fallacies (straw man and ad hominem, specifically), which three things are sufficiently discrediting in my view. Besides those, his presence and delivery have a slimy effect on me. There -- no name calling ;-)
You say you do not agree with Dershowitz on everything and can say why. Please, say why. I am curious.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: