Chomsky may be a bit of a nutcase (which is how I interpret your tag of hardline radical liberal) but his analysis of the Bush administration's propaganda seems spot-on, in the linked article.
How do you at one point in a thread discuss how "liberal" is an ad hominem, and in another part of the thread dismiss someone as a "hardline radical liberal"?
Because I'm not using "liberal" as an insult. I can't tell where you see an ad hominem, I'm "dismissing" Chomsky because he has a long track record plus popular image of being a radical liberal, which was the focus of my reply. I think you are assigning too much tone to a text-based discussion.
The use of "liberal" in the other thread was referring to "classical liberal". I was mainly trying to point out how the definitions that are popularly used these days should be preferred over definitions of "liberal" that might have been accurate two hundred years ago when the original "classical liberals" were contemporary.
