So why does nobody intelligent ever criticize him? Is it because he's perfect?

I know he's supposed to be an anti-semite and all the bullshit like that, but why can I only find websites criticizing him that are written by juvenile grad student Republican philosophy majors? Oh yeah and Alan Dershowitz. Who probably never had anything useful to say about politics until his favorite country was getting criticized. Total snore, but I'm reading him anyway. Is there anyone else?

If you hate Chomsky please supply websites that counter-argue (or your own counter-arguments). In the meantime I suppose I'll order the anti-Chomsky reader.

Chumpsky's anti semitism possibly stems from his defense of holocaust denier, Robert Faurisson.

Chomsky would be a self hating Jew.

I imagine Chomsky would be cold and unfeeling in bed... Monotone and bare-bones.

"................................................. ................................i am finished.
I will state that the socio-cultural implications of what we just did are relatively benign at this point. You are adequate, and if at a later date I wish to copulate, I will contact you."

Now that's classic Noam.

Brava and her gang use to post shit by him constantly.

Is it any wonder why leftists love him so much.

Although his defense of holocaust deniers is a new revelation to me. I'm going to have fun with that one.

http://www.adl.org/braun/dim_14_1_deniers_print.asp

Kazin's remark about Noam reflects mine.

mmmm I like Noam Chompsky too. I'd def have his kids though I think he has a couple already (and they're grown up). He's brilliant. i just saw Manufacturing Consent.

Chomsky's sort of a side-line figure, people in mainstream academe don't really criticize him per-se because his ideas are so extreme and condemnations so fierce they don't really fit in to any popular discourse. There's no point in 'debunking Chomsky' because what are you debunking? Chomsky really has no stance except for emotional arrows about every US president deserving to be hanged by Nuremberg protocol. That a lot of banging about violations international law. Chomsky more or less states the facts and morally indicts America on them. Political scientists ONOH have to take accountability for their positions, they have to offer real solutions to geopolitical problems. Chomskys declaration that he is an "anarcho-syndicalist", a childish philosophy, basically disqualifies him from civilized debate. If you want rebuttals of AS theyre not hard to find. The same goes for his "understanding power". Rebuttals of that paranoid theory of the media have come from many learned corners. You can find them on Amazon if you read the reviews for the book or probable even wikipedia. As for "syntactic structures", there are no rebuttals to that except from stubborn behaviorists, because Chomsky was right on that one. Basically, in politics, Chomsky is only really relevant in undergraduate circles.

Freedom of speech. You can't have it both ways, All the rights you were talking about for homosexuals in Palestine. Chomsky is talking about freedom of speech.

im suprised noone got on manufactured dissent
hes a new world order shill!!!(ALEX JONES HAHAHA
that shit was funny
LOGIC IS IGNORANCE!
his anti semite shit might come from the idea that he probabal also feels alot of the uh agenda setters of the human race are probably origijews
haha
.=ALIENS
hellooooo
not to mention on a face vlue level funded the nazis
(i think more ORCHESTRATED than just funded

Faga Semite 101
http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm

Its not about denying that loon his freedom of speech, its about criticizing his really terrible choice to defend racists. Holocaust deniers are perfectly free to present their ignorant claims all they want. Doesn't mean their anti Semitic remarks should go unchallenged.

Would you criticize those who counter protest at nazi rallies? Are they denying a nazi's freedom of speech?

I never knew anything about him being a holocaust denier, I know there was a controversy about him and the Khmer Rouge. Basically Chomsky spent about a decade apologising for slaughterhouse Cambodia, saying it was all hyperbole and propaganda created by the communist hating West. Basically he showed a surprising amount of moral relativism (for a moral fanatic) regarding the whole affair. He spoke pragmatically about “comparative costs”; i.e. Pot wasn’t such a bad guy, he was doing the best he could. But then the facts became insurmountable and Chomp pretty much shutup on that issue.

Chomsky is not a holocaust denier.

Maybe not, but the ADL described him as a "Dupe"

The ADL is like a Jewish Mother In Law . They have been known to over react.

That's overly dismissive but not an entirely unexpected reply.

It's Chomsky