But her premise was quite specific in how the right wing have used crises and even created crises for their economic gains.

You can watch video of Naomi Klein here

Read more about her book “Shock Doctrine” here:

http://NaomiKlein.org/shock-doctrine

And more about her at her website:

http://NaomiKlein.org

I didn’t know fafaroo even posted on the topic. The logical conclusion would be the death penalty. However, this could fairly be judged as “reductio ad absurdum” (even though there are people who sincerely believe this), so let’s look at the other options. Imprisonment would be a better, but not by alot. Having no punishment makes the whole debate pointless. The only punishment that even approaches the realm of reason is a fine, and that would make the classism of the anti-choice movement apparent to the public.

Or… she saw it as being advantageous to her not to speak out. In other words, an example of what she’s written about.

She spoke out when the crisis first hit and said it confirmed what Bush and Wall Street were trying to do. Now, when Obama is using it to his advantage to scare people into doing more than he normally would be able to get away with, she cheers him on.

She’s a fraud, Sean. It’s why you don’t hear much about her any more, when it’s precisely the time you’d think she’d be in demand for guest appearances. You only hear about her when nutcases like News Reference needs a reference to make his idiotic arguments. Last night it was Seymour Hersh, tonight it’s Ms. Klein. I’m guessing tomorrow night it will be Dan Rather.

It’s classic right wing Milton Friedman economics.

["S.D.M.", thanks for the clarification]

Naomi Klein is a fraud, that’s why.

Or… she saw it as being advantageous to her not to speak out. In other words, an example of what she’s written about.

“News Refererence”: No, “everyone” doesn’t.
…
You might be able to stretch your idea to “Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better” for themselves.

I believe I already did. The full quote is: “Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better? There may be disagreement on what will actually work to make things better, and for whom.”

I never suggested the “better” was an altruistic thing.

Have you listened to Naomi Klein discuss her book Shock Doctrine? As I understand the premise: Vultures profit when bad things happen. Vultures profit so much when bad things happen that sometimes the engineer bad things into happening so that they can profit from those bad things happening.
—News Reference

News Reference, tell me why Naomi Klein was so quiet when the biggest Shock Doctrine of all time went through last February? When Rahm Emanuel said prior to that “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.

I kept looking for Ms. Klein to make a profound statement since she had written her book on this very phenomenon, and here it was playing out before our very eyes.

Then crickets.

What happened? Cat must’ve gotten her tongue, huh?

Naomi Klein is a fraud, that’s why. You hero worship for the most dubious of characters has become a running theme here.

No, “everyone” doesn’t.

Have you listened to Naomi Klein discuss her book Shock Doctrine? As I understand the premise: Vultures profit when bad things happen. Vultures profit so much when bad things happen that sometimes the engineer bad things into happening so that they can profit from those bad things happening.

You might be able to stretch your idea to “Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better” for themselves.

But that’s not necessarily “better” by anyone else’s measure.

http://google.com/search?q=Naomi+Klein+Shock+Doctrine

A common falsehood pushed by right wingers is that because you can’t trust Republicans therefore you can’t trust politicians.

No.

You can’t trust Republicans.

And Republican Hollywood entertainer Reagan was especially untrustworthy. Republican President Reagan was a con-artist, it’s why right wingers love Reagan so much: Reagan told the big lie and conned a lot of people.

Right wingers worship good con-artists.

Still not seeing this as a solely liberal trait. People across the political spectrum do the things they thing OUGHT to work. And even after they are done debates can rage over whether or not they did.

You cite Clinton’s luxury tax. I could cite Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Currently folks point to the stimulus package. All examples of people (left and right) doing what they thought ought to work and all highly discussed as to whether they actually did/will.

As long as they can persuade themselves that it will work, little things like reality simply don’t apply.

Remind me, was it a liberal or a conservative who said “when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality–judiciously, as you will–we’ll act again, creating other new realities”?

Recall, for example, the “luxury tax” on yachts put forth during the Clinton administration. How’d that work out?

The wealthy just started buying and registering their yachts overseas, and the biggest effect was to devastate the American boat-building industry — putting a bunch of highly skilled, well-paid workers out of their jobs.

J.

On the contrary, people firmly DO believe things that they haven’t thought all the way through to ultimate consequences. To say someone doesn’t really believe something just because they haven’t thought it all the way through doesn’t stand up to basic human experience.

Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better? There may be disagreement on what will actually work to make things better, and for whom. But to complain that “liberals” want to do what they think will improve things is
a) a statement that could be applied to anyone and
2) not even an insult.

J.

First, you said:

Would you support your taxes be raised to support breathing infants healthcare?

Would you support raising the minimum wage so that that child’s parents can afford feeding their child adequate nutrition?

Then you admitted that “targeted tax hikes” almost NEVER end up actually doing what they promised. You cited a Reagan example, but there are countless others.

Your questions ought to be “would you support your taxes be raised if politicians promise that it will go for a specific purpose, even though they never keep such promises?”

Your answer is “yes!”

Mine is, “show me you might actually keep that promise, and we’ll talk about it.”

Very enlightening.

J.

Again, my entire point is that the unwillingness of the anti-choice movement to take this reasoning to its logical conclusion shows that they don’t really believe this.

But I understand your concern.

Republican President Reagan raised taxes on working people that were supposed to be for specific things and then Republican Reagan gave the ultra-wealthy massive tax cuts with those working-people’s taxes.

Republican Reagan went even farther by massively indebting America so to further provide the ultra-wealthy massive tax cuts.

It was classic right wing duplicity.

But that’s Republican Sleight of Hand 101.

So now right winger “Jay Tea” decides that women shouldn’t be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions?

I didn’t say that. I questioned abortion only. You’re the one who seems to be arguing that 1) abortion is birth control (well, technically true), and 2) the ONLY form of birth control.

<iWould you support your taxes be raised to support breathing infants healthcare?

Would you support your taxes be raised to support breathing child’s education?

Would you support raising the minimum wage so that that child’s parents can afford feeding their child adequate nutrition?

Tell you what, “Newsy.” Prove a few things first:

1) That the tax increases and minimum wages would be used for those purposes exclusively, guaranteed.

2) That the money would actually increase funding in those areas, and not just free up funds to be spent in other areas.

Pull that off, and maybe — we’ll talk.

Liberals support all of those things because liberals believe in doing what’s right.

Liberals believe in doing what they think will make things all better, regardless of whether or not it’ll actually work. As long as it makes them feel good, then it’s gotta be good — even if it causes far more harm than good.

Case in point.

J.

Would you support raising the minimum wage so that poor parents can provide basic necessities like nutritious food and roof over their head?

Or are you a typical right wing deadbeat?

And, again, for the record, “Frank”, liberals don’t care if you receive government welfare as long as you genuinely merit government welfare.

But liberals also understand two things:

1) If you are capable of spending the day typing you are capable of getting off your lazy ass and spending that time trying to get a job

2) If you genuinely require government welfare to get by, that welfare requires associated taxes to support your welfare.

You’ve demanded more government services and simultaneously demanded tax cuts. That creates government debt.

Republican Debt the last 30 years has been a huge burden on America.

It’s a huge part of Republican’s nonsense parade.

Liberals own fiscal conservatism.

The only way to provide (“liberal”) government services is through taxes (you know, “liberal” taxes).

Republicans ran this country into debt.

Republican Sarah Palin’s preacher only drives “witches” out of town in the 21st century.

Is that a sign of Republicans “moderating” their extremism?