Comments by "A.J. Hart" (@cobbler88) on "Chris Williamson" channel.

  1. All they "know" now is that Jefferson had children with slaves, which has actually never been proven and the chances of which are very remote. Granted, it took geneaologists and historians about 5 minutes to look all that up, but that appears to be the case.
    1
  2. Your "West" must be different than mine. In the U.S., we obviously think very seldom of either of them. That's just how we are. But enter the halls of US colleges where these men ARE actually discussed, you will be more likely to hear about Churchill's racism than you will a bad word about the ideas of Karl Marx.
    1
  3.  @nickcharles1284  I will usually choose to say these were "men of their time" rather than cast them against the societal norms of generations after their deaths. Not to defend Marx, but the n-word back then wasn't the n-word of today, and I don't care what my pilot thinks about Jews. I only care that he can land the plane safely. I leave it to others to gnash teeth about the rest. I have puppy videos to watch.
    1
  4. Chomsky didn't absent-mindedly omit what kind of gas it was. He deliberately led people to believe it was mustard gas. But even if we accept that his was a lie of omission, Murray doesn't commit a similar sin by not elaborating to the degree you claim he should for your personal edification, simply because you would never be edified. THAT rabbit hole never ends. You dislike his position so you would logically push his lack of unnecessary elaboration as far as you need to to try to make a point. That's aside from the fact that it's not necessary because the claim that "tear gas can be used to torture people" carries no serious weight. WATER can be used to torture someone. A FEATHER can be used to torture people. Also, neither gas is used to destroy an enemy. Even in WWI, only about five percent of people exposed to mustard gas who received medical attention died from it. But tear gas is still less lethal. You basically have to be trapped in a sealed box for an extended period of time to suffer any lasting effects from tear gas. And if we give Chomsky credit of being at least half-educated on the subjects on which he speaks or writes, then we have to assume that he knows this all too well. At the very least, he knows that no one is impressed by the use of tear gas, otherwise there would have been no need to attempt to mislead his audience. In fact, tear gas is so benign that they use it on us during Basic Training in the Army.
    1
  5. So you do not allow that two things can be true at once?
    1
  6. The positions outlined don't really take a rocket scientist to explain without seeming contradictory. More to the point, though, Harris is just about as predictable as anyone else. We give him so much credit as being an intellectual that we think a lot of his views have been carefully deliberated on, when a good number of them can be simply explained as, "once anti-GOP, always anti-GOP." At no point during the last four years has there been any indication that Harris was going to allow his views of President Trump to change. His biggest fans don't like to admit it, but in this way he's just as basic as any other anti-Trumper. And it was always fairly plain - at least to me - that the lunacy on display by the Left was an annoyance to him not because he disagreed with the "spirit" of what they claimed to represent, but that they were kooks who were making those views, which Sam actually shared, seem fringe. He could carry on discussions with ore conservative people, but always seemed ultimately moored in Leftism beyond "classical liberalism." Another way in which he's at least fairly predictable is that he can be counted on to become incredibly autistic over some minor point of a debate to the extent that - even though he may be about to humiliate the opponent - he gets up his own ass for so long that the other guy kind of just takes a knee and runs the clock out until the result of Sam's meandering is so far from the actual point being addressed that he basically has taken his boot off the guy's neck and let him escape. For those who would like at least a general example, how well does Sam do to sticking to the fight when he decides that the definition of a word needs to be explored? Yeah. By the time he's decided what something like "freedom" means, the other guy has already liberated himself from the conversation. I like the thoughtfulness that Harris brings to a discussion that a guy like Ezra Klein clearly does not, but having seen how he is also very likely to be viewing this or that through a particular prism, I certainly won't take what he says at face value until I've tumbled it around in my brain a bit.
    1