I like his writing on East Timor, but I disagree with him on the influence of the Israel lobby. He's not a nut job in any case. He's thoughtful on everything. I just don't agree on everything.

From what I understand of his critique of behaviorism I would actually side with Skinner on that, but I haven't studied that in much depth.

And why not point out problems with the article that he wrote which prompted the reply here? We don't have to go to oliver Kamm or Bogdanor. If he's so pathetic point out the errors here? Isn't it a fact that legally Bush's crime was more serious than OBL's? Isn't it a fact that there's no doubt about who the responsible party was in that case? I'm sorry, but it's all just true. Bin Laden denied involvement in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 and finally took credit in 2004. The fact is he may have been boasting. Mueller had no evidence. Bush admits he initiated a war of aggression, which has killed thousands of times as many people as what bin Laden did. Bin Laden is a gangster. As much damage as he did Bush did more. This is all true. Outrage in response changes none of that.

I'll check out Kamm. David's source for substance was more biographical regarding Chomsky. No substance. So I assumed the various links in the sidebar included substance. The top was was Bogdanor. Maybe I'm expected to look at every link, but I can't.

So you're going to offer an argument by various links or argument by links to books? You can't offer something substantive? Perhaps something relevant to the topic? I've looked at a lot of Bogdanor's so called lies. If Chomsky accurately cites a source on a topic, whether it's Amnesty International or other experts, and Bogdanor doesn't like it, this is a "lie". It's hard for me to understand why people take this sort of thing seriously. But he's the top link of so called substance at the link you offered.

Chomsky has been on Real Time 1 time to my knowledge. How many times has Coulter been on?

Once again, lots of ad hominem. "Self hating Americans," "psuedo scholarly writings", "Fake facts", "stuck in misery." No actual examples of fake facts. Nothing of real substance. Just a lot of aggressive name calling. The pattern here seems clear.

Well, I see a lot of name calling. We've got "hip dark priest of nihilism" and "political death cult". We've got that he has a high "level of self-hatred." What we lack is any substantive criticism.

Have you read any of Chomsky's books? I have. Those that I know that have read him remain impressed. If exposure would lead people to reject him, why are his lectures packed out every time? Why do his books become best sellers when he is never permitted on US television to promote them?

I think what you offer here is an effort to assuage those that find their faith weakening. What you offer is a substance free means of reassuring people that there's nothing to see here. If you are reading this and you find yourself in that position, know that David is simply completely wrong.

Better watch out if you are going to quote Chomsky in a lengthy fashion. Readers might start to recognize that what he said makes a lot of sense, and you didn't rebut it at all.