[anigbrowl]

No, I'm suggesting samstave is a conspiracy theorist. If Noam Chomsky has articulated the same view (and yes, I see what you did there), then I'd call him a conspiracy theorist too. On politics he's a complete bullshit artist - and I say that because he's a leader in his academic field. He would never accept a paper from a student or another linguist that was as fallacious as the sort of political essays he writes; he clearly understands the concept of academic rigor, but declines to practice it in his political activities. Total hypocrite.

[Ihmahr]

Sorry, but that is nonsense. His political work is always quite academic, baring an incredible amount facts backed up by references. I think public records are the one source he cites most.

Can you point out as single mistruth in his works?

Can you point out where he has not been academic where he should have been?

He might very well produce the most academic political writings ever.

Seriously...

[anigbrowl]

baring an incredible amount facts backed up by references

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Just because someone sticks in a heap of footnotes doesn't validate their claims. Climate-change denialists do this as a matter of course, but that doesn't make their work academically rigorous. Facts and data points taken out of context can be enormously misleading.

He might very well produce the most academic political writings ever.

LOL no. I read legal opinions and law review articles for fun. I have an intense dislike of Chomsky because I am the sort of person who reads all the footnotes and consults the cited reference works, and doing so on Chomsky's writings has led me in every instance to conclude that he habitually misrepresents his source material by selective quotation and omission of equally important countervailing facts.

When I first encountered Chomsky's writings I was tremendously excited, thinking that this was a guy who Tells It Like It Is. But the more I read and analyzed, the more disappointed I became. Not being American, I wasn't bothered by his challenges to conventional wisdom or the fact that he held a radical viewpoint. What bothered me was his near-constant manipulation of his readers.

[Ihmahr]

Again, can you point out what you mean with an example?