Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Status
Not open for further replies.

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
And just in case you think it isn't happening to you, consider that you aren't among the 0.1% richest people in America, which is why you haven't gotten a real raise since your parents started working;
dawndead3.jpg
Notice the curve climbs during Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Why are we supposed to quietly and obediently swallow the canard that somehow there's any real difference between them?
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member

Fogdog

Well-Known Member

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I honestly think he's paid to post that shit, will have to check authors for a pattern.

Seems like someone promoting their own bullshit.
One insight I gained from a back and forth with, first tty and then st0, came from their insistence in posting a video that featured a minute of Jon Stewart giving an insightful observation on Clinton's inability to be spontaneous and comfortable with speaking off the cuff. The video featured one minute with Stewart and 10 minutes of a thought guide who distorted Jon's message into characterizing Clinton into a plastic sociopath without a moral compass. Both tty and st0 could not quote Stewart accurately and often inserted their own words, more often inserted thought guide guy's words for Stewarts. Here is tty's post that contained the video. They both claimed it as proof positive that Clinton was unfit for office.

I watched yours, now watch mine;
If you can, watch Stewart's one-minute segment a few times. Pay attention to tone and the care Stewart gave to provide facts and observation-based opinion. Also note the exact wording in his last sentence. Then listen to thought guide guy for one or two minutes and note the difference. He appeals to emotion, spins a series of name-calling and casts Clinton as a power hungry narcissist. He overlaid his own message onto Stewart's analysis and guided his audience to believe it was Stewarts. The video is propaganda, pure and simple.

I've come to believe that this is evidence of the massive anti-Clinton propaganda funded by the right to suppress the liberal vote and to turn a few to vote for Trump. They didn't even do any research, they just recycled the propaganda they have been feeding right wing faithful. The butt-hurt Sander's left ate that shit up. Bernie bros are so hooked on the emotional high they get from this shit, they are still posting it a year later. Even 6 months after the election, they still keep going back to it. Like dogs returning to their own vomit.

It's clear to me that the Sanders left has become contaminated by right wing propaganda that is exactly the same as the pap delivered to the right wing masses. Mostly white men. Figures.
 
Last edited:

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
One insight I gained from a back and forth with, first tty and then st0, came from their insistence in posting a video that featured a minute of Jon Stewart giving an insightful observation on Clinton's inability to be spontaneous and comfortable with speaking off the cuff. The video featured one minute with Stewart and 10 minutes of a thought guide who distorted Jon's message into characterizing Clinton into a plastic sociopath without a moral compass. Both tty and st0 could not quote Stewart accurately and often inserted their own words, more often inserted thought guide guy's words for Stewarts. Here is tty's post that contained the video. They both claimed it as proof positive that Clinton was unfit for office.



If you can, watch Stewart's one-minute segment a few times. Pay attention to tone and the care Stewart gave to provide facts and observation-based opinion. Also note the exact wording in his last sentence. Then listen to thought guide guy for one or two minutes and note the difference. He appeals to emotion, spins a series of name-calling and casts Clinton as a power hungry narcissist. He overlaid his own message onto Stewart's analysis and guided his audience to believe it was Stewarts. The video is propaganda, pure and simple.

I've come to believe that this is evidence of the massive anti-Clinton propaganda funded by the right to suppress the liberal vote and to turn a few to vote for Trump. They didn't even do any research, they just recycled the propaganda they have been feeding right wing faithful. The butt-hurt Sander's left ate that shit up. Bernie bros are so hooked on the emotional high they get from this shit, they are still posting it a year later. Even 6 months after the election, they still keep going back to it. Like dogs returning to their own vomit.

It's clear to me that the Sanders left has become contaminated by right wing propaganda that is exactly the same as the pap delivered to the right wing masses. Mostly white men. Figures.
As I've said before; I'm just waiting for a "nasty woman" to complete my "Bernie Babies Quote Trump Lies" Bingo card.
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
I know, right?

Because you wouldn't know about having the courage of one's own convictions if it smacked you up side the head.
You still miss where I'm way to the left of you, I'd nationalize loads of shit.

You just act like a hysterical retard about it and cozy up to racists, antisemites and homophobes because they'll just listen instead of question.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I know, right?

Because you wouldn't know about having the courage of one's own convictions if it smacked you up side the head.
Your moral convictions were taken advantage of by right wingers. Not that I blame you. That propaganda was very well done. It's time to clear your eyes. The reason Citizen's United failed is because Republicans. Democrats can't do better than vote 100% in support.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Back to basics. Let's have a little more Mark Blyth;
'why do people continue to believe stupid economic ideas?'
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
And another, and a cameo with Noam Chomsky;
'So you wanna talk about theft?'
That clip poses an interesting question; Should taxpayers be reimbursed for their contribution to the development of technologies used in the development of products in the private market?

What do you think?
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
That clip poses an interesting question; Should taxpayers be reimbursed for their contribution to the development of technologies used in the development of products in the private market?

What do you think?
YES. In the form of taxes. Tax the corporations, tax the rich. Because NOT taxing them isn't working worth a fuck, is it?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Bernie Sanders Defends Campaigning For Anti-Abortion Rights Democrat
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

"The actions today by the DNC to embrace and support a candidate for office who will strip women – one of the most critical constituencies for the party – of our basic rights and freedom is not only disappointing, it is politically stupid," Hogue said. "Today's action makes this so-called 'fight back tour' look more like a throw-back tour for women and our rights."
Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion

"Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said there will be no litmus tests for candidates as Democrats seek to find a winning roster to regain the House majority in 2018.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

The Hill
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
YES. In the form of taxes. Tax the corporations, tax the rich. Because NOT taxing them isn't working worth a fuck, is it?
Devils advocate, what would you say to someone who said the public is paid back with the opportunity to buy one of the products whatever private company it is develops, like an iPhone?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
]Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion

"Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said there will be no litmus tests for candidates as Democrats seek to find a winning roster to regain the House majority in 2018.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

The Hill
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea why you partially quoted something I copied and pasted you then pulled up a partial quote that contradicted what you had taken out of context from my post. Are you stupid? Do you think I am? Really now. Are you so afraid to come out and face me that you have to hide behind partial-quotes taken out of context?

You used to be pretty cool to interact with. Now you are just a cringer. Is your decline all my fault? If it is, let me correct my harm and let me know how I can help.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Devils advocate, what would you say to someone who said the public is paid back with the opportunity to buy one of the products whatever private company it is develops, like an iPhone?
That's the system we have now. How's it working out for the average American?

I'm gonna go with, 'not so great, Bob'.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion

"Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said there will be no litmus tests for candidates as Democrats seek to find a winning roster to regain the House majority in 2018.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

The Hill
it will always be a mystery why the bernie babies couldn't win a primary that was chiefly decided by women and people of color.

guess we'll never know.

RIGGED
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I have no idea why you quoted something I copied and pasted
You criticized Sanders for endorsing Mello because, at one point, he opposed abortion rights

Now, Rep. Ben Ray Luján, the DCCC Chairman, says their official position is "Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights"

So you also oppose the DCCCs stated position, too, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top