roachboy

because, ace, your criticisms of the article were so fatuous as to not merit a serious response.

it's just another example of how you violate the basic rules of a political discussion.

you'd be better off blogging. we all would be better off.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Yes, yes, you have made it clear that I am not in your intellectual league. One should never expect a reasoned response to a person like me from a person like you.

I can honestly say I don't have a copy of those basic rules, do you have a link?

Feel free to ignore me anytime you would like.

Getting back to this neo-liberalism business:

Do you consider Obama to be a neo-liberal?

Given that I don't expect an answer from you, I assume your answer is - yes.

Based on the presumed answer:

What is the difference, to you, in the first term neo-liberalism of Obama and Reagan, if any?

I am going to assume your answer is that there is no difference in practical terms.

Given your presumed answers, I suspect you are in the smallest of small minority who hold such a view and you know it. Hence, when you use the term neo-liberalism you knowingly disguise your true meaning to get unsuspecting people to agree with your extreme views.

Nailed it didn't I?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

awesome, ace.
so let's go through the steps, shall we?
you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about materially.
you demonstrably didn't understand the article linked above.
you still don't know what neo-liberalism is.
therefore i am a communist.

you must have really tied yr thinkin cap on tight for that one.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

What does it mean when someone with extreme views says you have disagreeable extreme views?

What does it all mean?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

i am not sure what it all means.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Where did the communist thing come from? I don't know what you are, I don't know what you stand for, I don't know what you would be willing to fight for. My gut tells me that you are comfortable simply being an intellectual unwilling to take a stand on anything.

I try to understand you and your point of view. All my effort has gotten me is ridicule. The funny thing about this is you really believe that the problem with us communicating is me.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I did not say his views where disagreeable. I would actually have more respect for him if he took definitive stances for something. all he does is take shots at what he is against.

You can not clearly define what a neo-liberal is - that is what it means.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

The IRS may be moving to offer some small measure of reform by looking more closely at organizations that are abusing their 501(c)(4) non-profit status requiring that such organizations NOT be primarily for the purpose of political advocacy.

The impact would be significant in that groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch Brother's Americans for Prosperity would be required to pay taxes on income and contributors would be required to pay a 35% gift tax on their contributions and could no longer hide under the cover of anonymity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_866428.html

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Baraka_Guru

It all depends on what your meaning of means means.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Your question was what does it all mean, I will explain. There is a technical definition of neo-liberal, the given meaning. Then there is a practical definition of neo-liberal, the meaning assigned in the context of actual conversation. My personal view on "meaning" is, of course, some what digital or mathematical. so, neo-liberal only has real meaning to me relative to something. I need a comparison to understand both the technical and practical definitions.

I have read a bit of what Roach has written, and I believe he views that there is little or no difference between Republican conservatives and Democrat liberals.

I have also read much of what you have written here and I believe you view that there are vast differences between R conservatives and D liberals. So, when you both use the term neo-liberal it begs the questions I have been asking.

My confusion is real. Anyone who has actually read what you two have written would have the same questions.

I was always the kid in class who would actual ask the teacher/professor the obvious (often viewed as silly) question, that everyone else was to embarrassed to ask but were actually as confused as I was. I would often ask my silly question and see others make their funny faces, which would change when the depth of the most simple and basic questions lead to much greater understanding of the topic at hand. My persistence is both a blessing and a curse.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 AM ----------

Although I believe the NAACP is a 501(c)(3), what do you think the potential impact on an organization like the NCAAP will be? Are we looking at an unintended consequence? Are we looking at selective action based on political motives? Is that an abuse of power, if true? do you think the NAACP has been careful enough to stay on the correct side of the political line? Would you support an investigation? Why/why not?

So many questions to consider on this issue! No need to tell me how silly my questions are, I know what you think about me already. but if interested in addressing the points being raised, I am interested in your views on those points.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace. want to know how simple this is? you are a neo-liberal ideologically. no need to think real hard. you aren't one politically because you're a true believer. one of those chumps who thinks this nonsense obtains. it's funny.

politically, neo-liberalism is a different beast--it's patently about consolidating power in the hands of conservative factions within the plutocracy. deregulation blah blah blah---de facto instruments of consolidation of power.

the actions of the supreme court in erasing barriers to corporate money in political campaigns are patently an extension of neo-liberal politics. the need for campaign finance reform is obvious in the face of neo-liberal domination since reagan.

i could go on, but it's a waste of my time.

suffice it to say that the fact that neo-liberalism as an ideology refers to people like you and that you were unable to figure it out is beyond amazing.

well, it would be for anyone else.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

ace, you are confusing (c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations and the manner in which they can engage in issue advocacy/education.

I would support the IRS enforcing a strict standard for (c)(4) organizations, whether it is the work of the Koch Brothers or George Soros. They should not have tax exempt status if their primary mission and the expenditure of the majority of their funds is to engage in partisan politics. And their donors should be taxed and lose the shield of anonymity.

If you believe that Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS organization is to promote social welfare (requirement for a c4) rather than electing Republicans, then you are just demonstrating more rigid ideology.

Please, no more questions to deflect the issue. Deal with the facts for once.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ottopilot

Congratulations aceventura3... You've been LABELED!! (...by those who know best)

To commemorate the bestowing of "NEO-LIBERAL" as your officially administered stereotype, we at the American Political Monoculture wish to welcome you by offering this free membership.



There's strength in membership and remember our motto...

"a stereotype is a terrible thing to waste"

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

roachboy

have you read any of ace's posts, otto?
like ever?

jesus.
it's like there's a stupidity contest going on.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Neoliberals aren't home-schooled. They don't watch fucking Fox News and NASCAR.

Shit.

Neoliberals are those guys who are educated by the Chicago school and worship at the Church of Reagan. They're the guys who think objectivism is a viable social framework. They're the guys who think the market knows best, so just kindly get out of its way.

The market will make things right and anything that gets in the market's way is the source of all of society's problems.

All of them.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Plutocracy??? I have no interest in consolidated power or rule by a few weather that be by political or financial power. My cause is against big government and against big business -both work against individual freedom. It appears you are mixing political ideologies. You think clarify your view is a waste of time, but I would suggest you do take some time to clarify your views.

Again, money has less influence than you think it has. For example, Obama is not beholden to any big money special interest group. He does not need the oil industry, pharmaceutical industry, health care industry, auto in order to finance his campaign. He needs the votes of big labor. He needs an army of volunteers and an organization to get out the vote. He needs a cooperative and sympathetic media. So tell me, how has or how will money influence Obama's political behavior? It won't. Money is not his motivator, so what is your explanation?

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

Please stop trying to tell me I am confused. I know the difference. And I know the NAACP walks a fine line and perhaps crosses it regularly. There are more similarities between the (c)(3) AND (c)(4) than there are differences, in fact assuming a set of people who actually know what they are, few of those could tell you the important differences.

Well, you have to explain what makes an issue partisan. It may be no fault of an organization if a social welfare issue they promote becomes partisan. And even if it does become partisan does that negate the real intent of the organization? I think not. I am very uncomfortable with bureaucrats having the kind of power you seem to want them to have.

I think the problem is in the law. A person like Rove can easily exploit the intent of the law and be in compliance. In these circumstances I agree the law has to be changed, but I doubt I would agree with you regarding how to do it. I think such laws unfairly restrict those who do not have Rove's resources. These laws hinder real grass-roots political activities.

My questions do no deflect the issue. I ask you to understand the broader context of what you advocate for, there is a difference. You rarely show an understanding of unintended consequences or a vision of what is beyond what is directly in front of you. You should welcome and encourage my questions. Given that you don't, it reflects a closed mind on your part.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

Thank, you, it is with great honor that I accept membership as a stereotypical NEO-LIBERAL.

If we can find two people who actually agree on what a neo-liberal is, now that will be real progress.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace--did you actually read my fucking post? did you?

never mind. it doesn't matter.

it really does appear that there's a stupidity contest going on.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Am I:



---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

Just to be clear. When I talk about "markets" I am talking about the collection of individuals who make up the "market". So, if neo-liberalism is about power in the hands of individuals - then I am 100% on-board with it. What is the opposite of a neo-liberal and what are you?

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

Yes. Did you read my response?

Ignoring being called a chump (I educate my son to avoid name calling and use arguments to make his points, because name calling reflects an inability to actually construct an argument - a good lesson to learn...as a child), to suggest I support plutocracy, suggests you have no clue regarding my beliefs or the beliefs of those I support politically.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

ace, there is no easy opposite. It generally would be any proponent of a mixed economy and a government system that supports to some extent social liberal policies. This is in response to the very idea that unregulated markets are a good idea, that labour exploitation is okay, that the environment only matters insofar to the maximal wealth that it can generate, etc.

I'm more or less a social democrat, which is one of the positions that would oppose neoliberalism. The idea that those with capital should have far-reaching power over society almost exclusively via their profit motive and their risk ignorance/aversion is abhorrent to me. This isn't a conscious power; it's a power that's both amoral and irrational.

It's not exactly the kind of thing well suited to govern a society, despite the fictional warnings you may have read in Atlas Shrugged. I prefer societies to be governed based on the principles of representative democracy, preferably a form untainted by the corruption of wealth.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

in a very short post, i distinguished between the reality-optional views of true believers in neo-liberalism such as ace here

from the more complicated realities that neo-liberals have advanced/are enmeshed in once they get into power.

once in power, neo-liberal politicians tend to continue talking the same way but use it largely as a screen for enacting policies that advance the interests of conservative segments of the american plutocracy.

you know, the military procurement system, the prison-industrial system, the surveillance apparatus, the instruments of state repression, war if they can get away with it. all good for conservative business.

this is intertwined with conservative political organizations which operate in a similar manner: american conservative organizations care about power and little else. the ideology of neo-liberalism is transparently a screen for them behind which the political interests (getting power, holding onto power, undermining whomever holds power that is not them) and economic interests (the patronage systems that benefit from conservative-style politics tend to support the political interests that advance those interests)


there weren't that many sentences in the post.
it's baffling that ace managed to fuck it up.


an aside:

here's a good recent book that outlines (again) the fiasco that neo-liberalism has wrought

http://www.versobooks.com/books/105-contours-of-descent

that is comprehensive enough to link, as the guardian article does above, the corrosion of political autonomy to the damage inflicted by neo-liberalism, particularly across the clinton and bush 2 periods.

of course, to acknowledge that would require some critical reflexivity.
so i expect no response that makes any sense from the reality-optional set.
plus it's a book.

gulp.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

What you point out, roachboy, is what largely distinguishes neoliberalism from libertarianism. (For those who may need it pointed out.)

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

'
ace...perhaps you are not confused, just ignorant of the issue and the distinct difference between a c3 and a c4 or

And, one again, using that ignorance to pose hypotheticals and inane questions so that you can continue to ignore the facts.

What is a partisan issue? WTF? How about when you spend $millions solely promoting one party when you are supposed to be a social welfare oriented organization and not promote candidates or parties. Damn, dude, what can be more partisan than that?

I give up, ace. You dont want to discuss the issues...you want to deflect the discussion away from any solution with which you dont agree, ignoring any facts you dont like and that get in the way of your extremist ideology.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

IMO, you consistently put artificial roadblocks in the way of nearly every discussion rather than honestly address the issues and facts presented.

I think it is unfortunate for the community, but it too will survive.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

You consistently demonstrate an inability to defend your positions and hide that behind personal attack. You make a mockery of those who want to partake in a serious exchange on this board.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

You do not share the same definition of neo-liberalism as Roach. Did you need me to point that out?

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

I would suggest you do more home work on the subject, my gut tells me that you hang up on what amounts to a trivial difference precludes your understanding of the full consequences of what you support.

Again, you don't get it. If I give you an example to try to help you understand - I get your standard come back.

For those who do get it - promoting social welfare is directly related to supporting those in political power who share similar views on social welfare. It is an exercise in nothingness to have a social welfare agenda and not be politically active. If you want to save the whales, you support those in politics who want to save the whales. If you want to end racial discrimination, you support those in political power who want to end racism. Smart people will study the rules of the game and play that game to win.

I really don't care. Your error is in trying to persuade me to your narrow views. I will tell you, once you see the world from the perspective of an eagle, the view of a roach (pun intended) has no appeal.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

ace, neoliberalism is a broad concept.

If you want a dictionary definition, it represents a kind of liberalism bent towards a laissez-faire philosophy. But dictionary definitions are only so useful. Encyclopedic entries are a bit more useful. Neither are a be-all or end-all of anything.

Though I do sympathize with your need to have everything cut, dried, and stored in little boxes that are clearly labelled, not allowed to touch one another, and kept stowed away from the real world.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Why all the mockery of my questions then? Re-read the posts on this topic. I don't need any sympathy - I point out that you and roach sit back nodding in unison, when you clearly don't see the issue presented the way he does. And even to this moment, you two can not acknowledge your differing views although they are obvious to anyone who has read what you two have written. It is not about me, as much as you two want to pretend that it is.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Regarding your questions: they are usually posed as a way to sidetrack the conversation.

I think you tend to ask questions when you either a) don't agree with the premise, or b) can't defend your own position. Sometimes it's c) you don't understand something. But I don't think this is usually the case.

You ask questions as a way to turn the conversation into something about you or about something you'd rather talk about.

It's a bit distracting, so forgive me if I respond to your questions in ways that either nip something in the bud or otherwise keep the topic on course.

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a thread about neoliberalism and what it means to the world.

If you don't know what neoliberalism is, then look it up. If you disagree with anyone's position about neoliberalism, then challenge it.

Be forthright about it for fuck's sake. But I'm not sure that will even matter, considering roachboy's not sure you even read his posts.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

You posted this:

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...#ixzz1Oc8vra6a

In the context of this thread and what you and Roach have posted in the past I simply asked what is neo-liberalism?

Not hardly a side track!

Item B is incorrect. I always have a defense for my position. And when my position is emotion based or simply a gut feeling I will clearly say so.

What is neo-liberalism as a question, is about me? I never introduced this vague, il-defined concept in any thread. Wrong again.

Thinking outside your box is distracting, I understand. I agree that many find challenging the limits of what they believe to be true or looking at an issue from a different perspective can be pretty uncomfortable. Is your only purpose here to validate what you already think?

Do you not realize the level of your intolerance to those who attempt to challenge your strongly held conventions? you do not mock to the level of some here, but you do partake in it. Are you unaware of your intolerance? Do you find it acceptable? If I am in fact every negative thing that you believe, are you handling the situation in the best possible way, are others?

I did not introduce that concept into this thread, did I?

I will say it again.

You and Roach have different views on neo-liberalism.

That is my challenge statement to you and Roach. Prove I am wrong, and I move on. You can not, but for some reason can not say so, why?

I have read plenty of what Roach writes and some of the sources he has provided. He has never responded in a mature fashion to questions or responses. I no longer take his posts seriously. I thought that had been made clear a long time ago. All I will ever do with a Roach post is to take some extreme, illogical or indefensible portion of it, and point that out. I recall telling him that at one time or another, and I have also offered to engage in a serious discussion if he ever chooses to do so. Yet, the personal attacks never stop, so I give a few in return here and there. Pretty sophomoric, isn't it? At least I know when and why I do it.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

ace, you're doing it again.

As soon as you take a position, offer me your perspective.

Until then, you have none. Until then, all you have are your presumptions and accusations.

I'm not going to hold your hand.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

I certainly don't need hand holding. I simply point out the obvious contradictions in what I see.

Please go back to your neo-liberalism thing along with the absurd notion that conservatives don't accept science or whatever that was in another thread. My position becomes clearer - there is absolutely no need to try to engage those who hold such narrow and absurd points of view. Just understand that the trends are clear - things are moving in my direction. If I were you, I would want to understand why.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Cryptic clear as always, ace.

I see a bunch of contradictions in what you write too, but I'm not going to tell you what they are.

You think that things are moving in your direction, but the truth is you're going the wrong way.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed it yet. I think you're now my favourite progressive.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

wikipedia, ace. first stop of the intellectually lazy. you should know all about it:

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here's a better place to start:

Oxford University Press: A Brief History of Neoliberalism: David Harvey


[edited]

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

ace, I've been working for (c)(3)s and (c)(4)s for 20+ years, depending on whether I was on the lobbying side or the research/program side. I do know a little something about how they work and what restrictions are involved.

And I am still appalled but not surprised that you would try to rationalize campaign contributions solely to one party as a non-partisan social welfare activity.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

DC, are there any 501s fighting for campaign finance reform you're familiar with and might suggest supporting? I've got a bit of money I'd like to donate to a good cause.

ottopilot

No shit... You totally missed the point. Name-calling is still name-calling no matter how deep some lurk in their thesaurus gathering enlightened-sounding barbs to mask their intellectual limits or emotional shortcomings.

Oh yeah... the membership-card. I remember being assigned membership to the conservative wing of the American Political Monoculture by roachboy. He does know best! So I created the card (check out this blast from the past).
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2531584
So yes, Nascar and Home Skooled may not apply here. I didn't have time, nor the interest in creating a new card. Name -calling is still name-calling (or is that bigotry?) It all seems so fresh and familiar. Not much really changes around here does it?

... was that a tumbleweed that just blew by? nope...just another cheap-shot (neo-liberalism) disguised as "informed".

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Baraka_Guru

Hm. I guess I did miss your point. (I think I still do.)

But I suppose we're now even, because you missed mine.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

it's typically better, otto dear, if you get all huffy about "name-calling" in a situation where it's actually happening. i have lots of other, better names i would call you and ace. most of them i don't use here. but in 3-d you'd definitely know. o yes you would.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

The best and biggest is probably Common Cause. It is a 501 org that lobbies - issue advocacy - but does not endorse or contribute to candidates or parties. ( I dont think ace understands the difference between issue advocacy and contributions to candidates/parties.) BTW, because it is a lobbying organization, donations are NOT tax deductible.

It is great grass roots lobbying organization that focuses on campaign finance reform...

Campaign Finance Reform - Common Cause

... greater transparency and accountability in govt and other issues.

Now, I'll just wait for ace or otto to jump in and scream George Soros!

It is well known that Soros is a contributor to Common Cause because of its transparency in identify contributors unlike Rove's organization in which contributors can hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Most of its money comes from the 400,000 members that are just regular citizens like you and me.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

You forget... I like paying taxes.

I'm relatively familiar with Common Cause because of Beck's Soros rants, but for whatever reason it never occurred to me to look into donating. It seems fantastic. Thanks very much!

aceventura3

You don't even use the concept of neo-liberalism in the proper context of the author you cite.

David Harvey: Is This Really the End of Neoliberalism?

Free market capitalists nor I supported the protection of financial institution through government bailouts, the most recent ones or those done in the past. True free market capitalists would have allowed financial institutors who took excessive highly leveraged risk fail. True free market capitalists would have allowed big corporate operations like GM fail, there would not have been any bailouts.

Your mixed use of the concept of neo-liberalism is confused and you confuse others. I hold the belief that you do this purposefully. Because I call you on it, you find my posts intolerable.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."