Noam Chomsky is likely the most noted and capable theorist in liberal thinking of the modern age. Abby Martin is noted for incisive journalism and this edition of "The Empire Files" is subdued relative to other presentations, no doubt in deep respect for Chomsky.
No matter what your political persuasion, Noam Chomsky is an important voice for perspective relative to the highly-public pandering by politicians.
Goldwater Republicans may well find little disagreement with him. The Tea People have no idea and refuse to learn because they're so owned by corporations but it's a colossal mistake to cater to them rather than support those who know what is happening (e.g. Goldwater Republicans and Democratic Socialists, the others simply insult us with the perennial obstruction of process).
Chomsky addresses political theory more than the idiosyncrasies of individual candidates because none differ from each other that much other than Sanders, whom Chomsky identifies as similar to Eisenhower. It's important because relatively few have been interested in the theory and that's precisely why the American political parties are in so much trouble and have caused an obstructive ripple in governments around the world.
If the above isn't true, how is it a problem specifically with corrupt and crooked mortgage practices in banks in America resulted in banks caving around the world. This is American leadership?
There's nothing wrong with America except insofar as bankers are not yet covered with tar and feathers.
No matter what your political persuasion, Noam Chomsky is an important voice for perspective relative to the highly-public pandering by politicians.
Goldwater Republicans may well find little disagreement with him. The Tea People have no idea and refuse to learn because they're so owned by corporations but it's a colossal mistake to cater to them rather than support those who know what is happening (e.g. Goldwater Republicans and Democratic Socialists, the others simply insult us with the perennial obstruction of process).
Chomsky addresses political theory more than the idiosyncrasies of individual candidates because none differ from each other that much other than Sanders, whom Chomsky identifies as similar to Eisenhower. It's important because relatively few have been interested in the theory and that's precisely why the American political parties are in so much trouble and have caused an obstructive ripple in governments around the world.
If the above isn't true, how is it a problem specifically with corrupt and crooked mortgage practices in banks in America resulted in banks caving around the world. This is American leadership?
There's nothing wrong with America except insofar as bankers are not yet covered with tar and feathers.
No comments:
Post a Comment