oh horseshit.
>, and invoked your mother-in-law's reaction as something of a test. I
>don't know your m-i-l, but I don't feel any compulsion to shape my
>comments to please her. Convince, provoke, inspire thought, sure, but why
>should Chomsky or I or anyone have to play the God Bless America game?
>Doug
i said none of these things. you can't even get who i was talking about right! and what i said she would think, to wit:
"I'll channel my mother here and give you what I know will be her response: chomsky did not look good, save for the part where he did what he does well, show how Bennettbarf clearly lied about what he's said. Bennettbarf insisted that Chomsky was trying to justify the attacks. Chomsky simply pointed to his quote.
Nonetheless, <...>"
note the transition, Nonetheless -- where i was clearly moving into a discussion of how i'd characterize what went down in that debate.
furthermore, i noted that i think people want to hear:
"People want to hear him say and mean it: I live in the greatest country on the planet. they want to hear him say, I love this country so fucking much that I want us to do better. I love the people in this country. I know we're a compassionate people. I know we want freedom and equality and peace. And I want our nation state to do what i know American people stand for because I know they don't stand for death, destruction, and terror."
again, why ignore the rest of the questions? why focus _only_ on the "greatest" part? why ignore the clear distinction i'm making between nation state and people? michael perelman saw it and so did others?
and, of course, you go on to ignore every other thing i typed, thereby doing the same thing to me as they have done to you.