Noam Chomsky as a running mate?
Submitted by Nev3r0dd0rEveN on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 22:50
I say RP announces his running mate - and I say it should be Noam Chomsky. While the public may not know much about him, the intellectual forces in the U.S. know him very well. This news (if reported), will become a very popular topic for discussion. And I also believe that with Dr. Chomsky's knowledge of government, and his unwavering commitment to education and freedom of information, he could serve as a solid Vice President.
If you don't know him, check him out here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=676452061991429040&q...
He is a libertarian socialist, and most of his views on the important issues are directly in line with those of Dr. Paul's.
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"RON PAUL IS NOT LOSING, AMERICA IS.
HE CAN FIX IT, WITH OUR SUPPORT
nnnooooooooooooooooooooooooo he is the enemy, posing as an angel
"RON PAUL IS NOT LOSING, AMERICA IS.
HE CAN FIX IT, WITH OUR SUPPORT"
Will never happen
Although I respect Chomp's academic skills, more people would vote against RP just to keep Noam shut up and off the scene. Overall he would be a big negative. RP is smart enourgh politician to pick a VP most likely to help him win like Pat Bucanun.
Picking Chomp would be similiar to Perot's pick and the kiss of death.
Please change the title of your post
Try something like: My suggestion for running mate.
Dumb people who skim this site looking to slam RP will read headlines only and think that this is true.
Or better yet, delete the post. Thanks
No.
No.
1) Chomsky doesn't support Paul:
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/141986/index.php
2) This may be a bit far reaching, but I think Chomsky's role as whistleblower and exposer of some of the real nasty aspects of USA foreign and domestic policy would be threatened by a Ron Paul presidency (along with congressional and senate support) that *really* changed the dynamic of the USA. That's cynical, I know. But exposing the nastiness of a State sells books too.
Oh and btw - on Chomsky's reply concerning corporations(in above article). They used to be outlawed in the USA and when they were granted, they were done so only under very limited conditions. The simple reason is - corporations aren't punished the same as individuals running a business are when they violate other's human/civil rights.
We have to think bigger.
Come on people. Enough with the communist/libertarian/marxist/ linguist Vice Presidents. Huck-a-boob-job wants Jesus as his running mate. How do we beat that? I say we find Thomas Jefferson's grave, dig up his bones, extract the DNA and clone him. Voila - the perfect VP!!
Now can we let this thread die?
Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist
We should invite these folks to the party; however, no meddling in the free markets and nothing as lofty as Vice President for an academic. I would suggest Barry Goldwater Jr. as VP to stick more to our principles. It does not matter to me though - as I follow a Khan of virtue and who he appoints to his successor will also be a man of virtue. Noam is a man of virtue; however, he is mislead by the very oligarchy he points out. He doesn't even see the "manufactured consensus" as clearly as he describes its machinery.
"Walls are stronger than the men that defend them."
Ghegis Khan
"Walls are stronger than the men that defend them."
Ghengis Khan
We all know who his running mate is going to be
Berry Goldwater Jr., Or if he accepts Jesse Ventura
I doubt Jesse Ventura would endorse Paul
My apologies if I am out of the loop and he already has, but I don't think Dr. Paul is Ventura's kinda guy. Ventura is an extreme social liberal, and he quit the Reform Party over Buchanan winning its nomination.
- -
Get your own "Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary" bumper sticker at
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08
Craziest idea
there are a few similarities, but for the most such differences: socialism vs free economy and do you think the GOP would ever vote for someone like this???
He is an academic and no politician. Please stop with such wild ideas and let us concentrate on getting precint leaders and canvassing, so that Dr. Paul can have the best performance possible and with Huck, we enforce a brokered convention, OK
This is sickening
I can't believe this is still here! You CANNOT cherrypick a complete SOCIALIST just because he might not like a few things we don't like. He is totally world order! It is making me sick to still see this in the sidebar.
HE'S A LEFTWING GATEKEEPER.
HE'S A LEFTWING GATEKEEPER. Never in a million years would that man hold a candle to RP.
Puppets come and puppets go but the world's stage is getting cluttered.
Chomsky is a LEFT-WING LOON!!! NO WAY!
He should stick to linguistics and GO AWAY!!!
Besides, Ron Paul is more known than he is.
Chomsky is like the intellectual equivalent of Nader (NO, don't even suggest it).
We need someone who will get us the nomination.
Only ONE person can do that - that is the Huckster.
He is a popular, skilled rhetoritician who has managed to stealthfully go from being a Marxist Minister to a total Ron Paul rip-off without anyone noticing.
He has the delegates we need. We pool our delegates and trample McInsane. Huckster gets VP - he is young - he'll accept that.
Besides, he is EASILY controllable - his CFR Senior Policy Advisor was only appointed back in December by the GOP. And still, on domestic issues he sounds more and more like Ron Paul every time he opens his mouth!
Do I like the guy? NO WAY! I'd love Pat Buchanan as VP, but we need someone with MOMENTUM - and only the Huckster has it.
Besides, we brokered that deal in WV to topple McInsane - that means there is already a standing alliance between Huck and Paul supporters that can be built on.
It's KILL McCain or Bust!
I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat pork!
I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat pork!
besides what everyone else
besides what everyone else has said an 'unknown' prematurely picking another unknown for a running mate serves no purpose.
The only reason I call RP an 'unknown' is because of the amount of people I have to educate about him. So please take no offense.
reply
Lee Iaccoca would be a tremendous VP for Ron
Where the haverhill..
...do you get this utter NONSENSE? Chomsky is a socialist/statist.
FLAG
why is that a flag? aren't
why is that a flag? aren't flags suppose to be for things that are very offensive? Chomsky does have some decent ideas.. Such as PEACE not War.
Not the only issue!
Ron Paul is not the 'peace' candidate. He is a republican who is against interventionism. There is a big difference. This is not an anti-war/military/defense movement to disarm us in preparation for the world government.
Chomsky hates Paul
You know Chomsky said he would support Hillary before Paul, right?
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/noam-chomsky-...
Not in a heartbeat
When I first started studying politics I was a die hard Chomsky fan, and I appreciate him waking me up to alot of issues. The fact of the matter is that Chomsky said it himself that he would never support Ron Paul for president and in my book that disqualifies him from being relevant. Drop this idea now because it will never happen. I like Noam Chomsky but not as a VP. That is my opinion.
Not my favorite
.
Long ago I fell under the Noam Chomsky spell. I thought everything he said was pure gold and I lapped it up. No more. He's a one-world guy, against any kind of national sovereignty and certainly is - as you state - a socialist. The guy's a creep. A very clever, articulate creep.
In addition, it is just way too early for RP, or anyone else, to think about a VP candidate. The only person who might fill that bill, and assist RP's chances, is Dennis Kucinich. Yes, he's a Democrat, but he and RP have voted identically on most Congressional bills and have co-sponsored quite a few also. He's not my favorite pick, but RP could do far worse. Like, say, Chomsky.
.
WHy too early to name VP?
It would be a bold move. Generate some old media buzz, put more boots on the ground, costs nothing, piss off the old guard, etc. RP should have done it last Oct.
But not Chomsky please :)
h-daddy
They should...
... add a magic 8-ball to the presidential ballot.
I'd vote for a magic 8-ball before i'd vote for McHillobama. And it would make better decisions statistically than Bush.
=)
No Way !
Left gate keeper. Chomskey advocates gun control, support for UNESCO, and the U.N. Conspicuously silent in his criticism of the Federal Reserve, World Bank or IMF, calls the CFR and Trilateral Commission "nothing organizations".
I seriously doubt Ron Paul would ever consider Chomsky as a running mate.
Dr. Paul...
.. would probably put a neocon on the ticket with him before he'd put a die-hard socialist like Chomsky..
Chomsky is considered an information gatekeeper of the left.....
He is very intelligent but never quite gets to the root causes of certain geopolitical issues.
Kinda like Michael Moore (farenheit 9/11) gets close,but no cigar.
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
Not a chance
While there are obvious congruences between Paul and Chomsky on foreign policy, they are poles apart on domestic issues. In fact when asked Chomsky said he would not vote for Paul because of his stand in favor of letting young people opt out of social security.
"libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms.
You are part right...
He is a socialist. There is no liberty in socialism. So in my would you would be 100% wrong, but with No Child Left Behind, I give you 50%
that's hysterical.
that's hysterical.
Good Lord, No!
How about Ralph Nader while we're at it?
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
He was suggested about 20 times already
and about 100 other bad choices
The interesting part of your post
is in naming VP choice now. There are some possible benefits...
But the Chomsky idea is DOA. Chomsky is libertarian on social issues but mostly a socialist on economic issues. That is not a good mix for Dr.Paul. Chomsky and RP would have some common ground but they are just too far apart. Besides, the average person in this country has no idea who Chomsky is and could not relate to him in any way.
h-daddy
How about "Noam Chomsky" as Jesus
He could star in a broadway play
It is 100x more likely to happen
"Libertarian Socialist"!!!!!
You got me with that one!
Hahahahahaahahahahah!
Very funny!
Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky is a linguist.
That means it's his job to twist words around to confuse you and make you believe something that you don't.
This is exactly the opposite of everything that Ron Paul stands for.
"Noam Chomsky is a
"Noam Chomsky is a linguist.
That means it's his job to twist words around to confuse you and make you believe something that you don't."
Sorry, I didn't realize that was the job of a linguist. Had I known that, I would have never started this topic. Geez, why didn't I just suggest Frank Luntz as a running mate...
Obviously exaggerating.
No, the job of a linguist is to analyze how to words are twisted around to confuse people.
There are many honest linguists who perform their job in an objective manner.
Many of them however, also like to put their knowledge to use. Noam Chomsky is one of these.
"No, the job of a linguist
"No, the job of a linguist is to analyze how to words are twisted around to confuse people"
While that might be the job of a small minority of linguists, a linguist usually works on translation and interpretation. Not really concerned with how language is being used to confuse people - but your own interpretation of a linguist very well may be rooted in what Chomsky acknowledges to be an increase in cynicism by the public, resulting from too many lies.
I disagree
Only because I had read a critical critique by Chomsky himself of Ron Paul.
Also, what the heck is a "Libertarian Socialist"?
That is like saying a "Free Market Communist".
Noam Chomsky is an anarchist
Noam Chomsky is an anarchist and has already stated his *opinion* on Ron Paul. Although I do admire Chomsky for some of his orations, I don't think he'd make a very good choice as VP for quite a few reasons. One, he's an anarchist. Many ppl just don't understand what that means and think it's total chaos or mad max beyond thunderdome type of stuff. Second, he doesn't seem to dig ron paul too much :)
An anarchist simply does not
An anarchist simply does not believe that men should rule other men.
A true anarchist is much closer to a Libertarian (who wants very limited control in any government) than a Socialist (want to rule every mans economic freedom in total but allow some social freedoms).
Yes I agree with this. It is
Yes I agree with this. It is accurate. Anarchist is such a stereotype. But it is really close to a Libertarian.
He says he's an anarchist
but his idea of anarchism is not anarchistic. In his "anarchist" society, people would not be ALLOWED to engage in capitalism if they wanted to. The collective would forbid it by assuming that they socially own all the means of production. That's really no different than socialist statism.
I was attempting to
I was attempting to manufacture consent on the dailypaul. I guess I'm not as good as FOX or CNN are at this. There is a lot of overlap in their beliefs, but I did not realize that Chomsky called Paul a crank. And libertarian socialism does not rely on the state to provide for the citizens, instead, non-profit orgs and unions. so some of the posters below are wrong,
Funny that a guy like
Funny that a guy like chomsky would call Ron Paul a crank- isn't that exactly what chomsky is?
BTW, the guy would bring NOTHING to the campaign, even if it was a good fit, which it isn't.
www.ronpaul2008.com
www.ronpaul2008.com
well,
the VP discussion has been posted as a thread at least 3 times in the last few months on DP. And as many times,someone or two or three have suggested Noam C. And each time,it's been knocked down.
So to manufacture consent?????
perhaps a fresh topic might be a better strategy.
C'mon,Chomsky is a gatekeeper for the elite. The linguist quote about him on this thread says it best. Thanks for that.
There is no such thing as
There is no such thing as "libertarian socialism" the terms are opposite.
Here is why. With socialism you concede all your property to the state and to the general welfare of "society". Government takes control of everything and they give you what they determine you need.
However Libertarian is a philosophy that is all about property. You can do what you like, so long as you don't harm others, because you own your body, your life, and your labor.
Here are some resources that you can use to get a better understanding of what I am saying.
1. http://media.switchpod.com/users/citizenx/Episode_5.mp3 (from
http://libertyradiounderground.com )
2. http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
You really need to find out the differences, once you do, I'm sure you will make the right choice.
Paul is pro-profit
Paul is for unregulated for-profit capitalism. That's everything Chomsky is against. Paul is a libertarian individualist. Big difference from a libertarian socialist.
The modern definition....
... of "capitalism" is not the same as the old "classical capitalism" that used to be taught. Saying Dr. Paul is for "unregulated for-profit capitalism" is not quite accurate in the new vernacular.
Dr. Paul is against monopolies and believes that the federal government has legitimate roles in regulating certain aspects of commerce.. especially protection of property-rights.
Dr. Paul, like Reagan, while agreeing with the main principles of libertarianism, have some strong difference of opinion's with capital "L" "Libertarians". The Reagan revolution was a synthesis of traditional conservatism and libertarianism.
Paul is against regulating monopolies
Paul is for the abolition of antitrust laws.
Paul certainly is for unregulated for-profit capitalism.
You may not realize that laissez-faire capitalists believe that monopolies cannot form in unregulated capitalism. It's regulation the causes monopoly.