The right is well aware of this, and are also aware that the black masks "antifa" used can be purchased anywhere, and lucked out when BLM often used them in their rallies too (thanks to Covid) so they were already subconsciously connected. It wasn't difficult for them to buy some black masks and clothing themselves, then commit crimes in the name of antifa at BLM events, so they did, most arrested for shootings and all arrested for bombings were right wing terrorists only dressed as antifa.
They even had manifestos outlining their plan to trigger civil war by instigating riots and committing murders and bombings and blaming their actions on antifa when caught.
That needs to be in the spotlight imo, so people understand the violent mob isn't just leftists, it's also Trumpists in antifa clothing and they're perpetrating (and attempting) the worst violence.

I agree about silencing offensive speech. The right way to handle offensive stupidity is debate it publicly, imo. Does the left at these universities not have access to intelligent knowledgeable people willing to contradict blatant racists or Nazis on stage? Do the universities not have a debate coach willing to moderate? Why not?
Just call Cornel West, he'll do it.

Cornell West is what a real fucking hero is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6pN6x6pGwA

"This idea that somehow we've got to opt for neoliberal disaster as the only option vis-á-vis the neofascist catastrophe -- as a blues man, I appreciate you playing that blues."

I just love Cornel West.

Have you seen the list of Sanders' picks for the DNC platform? Some members of the Black Misleadership Class must be furious to see Cornel West being given another pulpit. And McKibben... some people are going to stroke out for sure.

I see a lot of entertainment on the horizon.

https://youtu.be/nHsHhj329T4?t=8m46s

Laura Flanders had Cornel West on her show...

Let me quote Cornel West:

Brother Martin Luther King, Jr., what would you say about the new Jim Crow? What would you say about the prison-industrial complex? What would you say about the invisibility of so many of our prisoners, so many of our incarcerated -- especially when 62% of them are there for soft drugs and not one executive of a Wall Street bank gone to jail? Not one!

Martin doesn't like that.

Not one wiretapper. Not one torturer under the Bush administration -- at all.

Beyond the 10 minute mark, Cornel West brings out the big guns: Wall Street, torture, decades of solitary confinement in California, hunger strikes in California/Gitmo, force-feeding.

Wonder if all his little A-list friends were invited?
Danny Glover and Kevin Spacey will be there, Harry Belafonte and Bono are gonna sing, Naomi Campbell and Cornel West will be coming together to make her look smart and him look sexy...Oliver Stone OHhh, and that whining bitch Cindy Sheehan can come and continue her 2nd or 3rd stage of grief with fellow mourners...

Human rights abuses and threats will no-doubt continue, maybe they'll let anyone have a television station and a constitution that let's you talk shit about el comandante' without being killed or disappeared...Or maybe they should pull an Alberto Fujimori and hire-out!!

I am also not for blatant redistribution of wealth; however, I strong disagree with:

1) Corporate tax loopholes: Apple 9.8%, Google 11.9%, Yahoo 11.6%, Amazon 3.5% paid for Fiscal Year 2011 instead of advertised 35.5%
2) Off-shore tax havens
3) Privatizing profits and socializing bail outs
4) Subsidies to corporations and industries already drawing massive profits
5) And last but not least, the simple fact that not a single person went to jail after the 2008 crash due to cooked books in the financial sector

It is the responsibility of every citizen to give back to their community to promote a Quid Pro Quo society. Hopefully, many of these problems will be solved in our lifetime.

As Cornel West so eloquently stated earlier last year, and I paraphrase, the true test of every democracy is what to do with its weakest demographic. The fact that people are born in these social strata (i.e. success not always earned) is reason enough to put the pressure on the most fortunate, a group in which I happen to belong, to support those who never even get a chance.

Since most of what I say lands on Neo-Conservative deaf ears, I'll play their game and ask "What would Jesus do?"

Finally, QM, we always argue respectfully, and I want you to know that I do not favor any party. Both Democrats and Republicans put party ahead of nation and that's a disgrace.

you can hear Cornel West unmistakable laughter and comments in the audience off screen.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by marbles:
>> ^enoch:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/marbles" title="member since May 7th, 2011" class="profilelink">marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?


Contradictory like: "[strawmen arguments] is all i have seen you post ... you make some salient points"?

But evidently I'm the one that's oblivious. So please do tell.

>> ^enoch:
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?


Wrong thread pal. But again, please do tell.
>> ^enoch:

i write this with all sincerity and humility because i feel your heart is in the right place,but man..your arguments are conflations smashed with contradictions.
you make some salient points and then confuse your entire premise with smashing them with red herrings and gobldegook rhetoric.
stay on point brother,
and disagreeing with DFT is fine but questioning his intellect or sanity is a step i would recommend against.
he does not suffer fools lightly and your arguments have left you wide open for a smack down.
just my friendly two cents.


I don't know what a "conflation smashed with contradictions" is, but I would suspect your post is a lot closer than anything I've posted here.

Seriously I appreciate the concern and the Bible reference about suffering fools, but I hope that's not a swipe my intellect or sanity. For that would subvert your whole neutral status, now wouldn't it?

Go back to mindless cheerleading and let DFT fight his own battles. Or rather, babble ad hominem static in-between championing Wall Street agendas.


@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/marbles" title="member since May 7th, 2011" class="profilelink">marbles
did you just bullet response my comment?
/chuckles
awesome.
ok...whatever man.
and by what means did you derive my intentions?
crystal ball? voodoo?
you got me wrong scooter.
you aint got the first clue who i am.
my comment and intentions were sincere.YOU projected your own bullshit which had nothing to do with me.
any inclination i may have had to elucidate further on some of my points has evaporated due to your own feeble understandings of who i am.
so you go right ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want to believe concerning me based on nothing but your own limited perceptions.
because frankly...i dont give a shit.

Your video, The People vs. Goldman Sachs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If you view free market as a processes like natural selection, then everything counts including regulation. Regulation is simply an adaptation to market conditions by certain segments of a population. It is an ability to exert control on the market while avoiding the volatile, risky and harmful consequences other methods might accrue.

There will always be someone/something trying to control market forces in their favor. If you were to eliminate any regulation you would be eliminating one side's ability to exert control, they would be at the mercy of those who control the resources. So I guess in rebuttal to your argument, we either already have free-market working as intended or it doesn't exist and can't exist because anytime you put in a stipulation that you can't do X you're regulating someone's ability to exert control over the market forces.

As far as consumers go, I'm torn by the desire to see people acting more personally responsible and the opinion that you shouldn't have to be a professional in everything. You just can't compete when you're trying to know everything so you can make the right decisions, against someone who specialize in a specific area. At some point you're going to have to appeal to an expert. Unfortunately we have become so used to appealing to the experts its become increasingly easy for the experts to take advantage of everyone else.

Also:
I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.
I can't help but feel that is an exceptionally true statement. Our system of regulations has been cobbled together and broken apart by various ideologues over the years as painful a process it might be I wish we could redo everything in a manner that makes sense for the current market.


In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

A. We have been running counter-cyclical deficits. You can say what you want about the "shell game", which I btw don't agree with as a characterization, in the mid to late 90's, but compare that to the deficits run post 9/11. There's a marked difference. Compare George W. Bush deficits of the mid 2000's to what Obama has done. When the economy tanked, deficits grew, not stayed the same or shrunk.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_100.png

I completely agree with you we have failed to run surpluses when the economy has been prospering. That is absolutely the case, but you definitely see swelling of deficits in response to recessions in the chart above. That's a Keynesian idea, even if it is shared with the monetarists.

B. Yeah, I'm sure. Granted, LOL @ Ballmer from time to time.

D. Individuals may be skeptical of the FDIC right now, but we're speaking of the influence systemically of the FDIC. This past financial crisis was all about a credit crisis. Part of why the recession occurred occurred was an eroding of available credit due to pervasive fear and mistrust, a lot among banking institutions of each other. The last thing we needed was a run on the banks, and that was very largely avoided. The FDIC was a huge reason for that. Had there been, more banks would have gone under, and banks still surviving would have been even more irrationally tight on lending. That would have been absolutely disastrous. There's little doubt in my mind we would have seen 20% unemployment.

>> ^bmacs27:

A. Lol at counter-cyclic budget deficits. I know they played that whole shell game with social security in the 90s, but other than that, I don't think we've really been running many counter-cyclic Keynesian surpluses. The other thing to remember is that monetarism is a derivative of Keynesian theory, so it isn't surprising that they have some overlapping prescriptions. I guess I would push my argument further by stating that Greenspan is broadly considered a monetarist, and he pretty much ran the economy over that interval. Teh maestro.
B. Heh, you sure about that? "I LOVE this COMPANY!!!!!!!"
C. I think we pretty much agree here without getting to wonkish.
D. My GF is in ING. It's now capital one, so she's likely leaving it. Pretty much I wish your average bank was much smaller than they are today. Also, I wouldn't be so confident in that FDIC insurance. The FDIC itself is in some dire straights. Also, they just moved all that bad Merrill paper into FDIC insured subsidiaries of BoA so that they could borrow against the deposits at better short term rates to support it.