Ergo, the prosperity is shared.

from the Apartheid era South African term for secret police. The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is what the Imperial Japanese euphemistically called their World War Two occupied colonies.

I do wish that American politicians and aparachiks understood the derivation of their terminology

threads on her rally, NOT TO FUCKING NOT critique what she says in OTHER threads. And you know that. Fuck the disingenuous crap.

Here it is in plain English, your majesty.

It would be great if not a single one of us pissed on the celebratory Clinton kick off rally threads tomorrow. It was a drag when some Clinton supporters did that in Bernie kickoff threads, though it should be noted that most Clinton supporters did not.

Tomorrow will be a great day for Clinton's DU supporters and they shouldn't have to deal with people pissing on those threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026825116

Cali was one of the magnanimous ones who encouraged others not to piss on HRC's parade in their actual celebratory threads-- not to ignore her positions (or lack of same) in general.

Look up passive aggressive and apply to this thread.

genesis. I wrote an op about it when HRC first used it 2 months ago.

care what you would "welcome" from HRC? Because you have already indicated that there is nothing she says or does (with respect to what you pretend to be asking) that will be believe.

She could define down to the micro-level, the meaning of "shared prosperity", using the sainted words of DU, and you would respond by initiating 1,000 more anti-HRC threads.

It promotes, in non-critical listeners/readers, the notion of a caring interaction. Of course, sharing a pot of boiled chicken can and often does mean breast meat for some and thin stock for others.

Sharing is a potential weasel word, but then it is not necessarily deceitful. The critical issue is to discern what is meant/intended by the person using it.

As campaign speeches are essentially marketing, we know they are manipulating appeal and likeability. Nothing wrong in that, but we need to ask what is really being promoted? And we need to guard against our biases as much as we guard against manipulation in the message.

Very interesting what you like and don't like.

Do you believe these attacks on Luis Vicente Gutiérrez will endear those making them with Latino Democrats?

he's being attacked and has a sad.

The National Journal article that was used to attack Gutierrez was over a year old. The op refused to answer as to the current state of Conaways committee. In response to the question for follow up was simply a rash of name calling by the op. That was the ops first line of attack against who I consider to be an extremely consistent progressive voice. I read no further into their op. Here is the link that was used.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/rep-luis-gutierrez-s-house-ethics-investigation-will-continue-20140505

They refused to talk about the current state of the investigation of Conaway.

Here is a little about him.

Serving his sixth term in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Conaway represents 29 counties in Texas’ 11th congressional district, including the cities of Midland, Odessa and San Angelo.
A conservative Republican, Rep. Conaway believes in the principles of lower taxes, smaller government and a secure nation. His background as a CPA gives him a unique perspective on fiscal responsibility and ensuring every taxpayer dollar is being spent wisely.

In the House, Congressman Conaway is the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and also serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

He is a deputy Republican whip, a position he has held since the 112th Congress.

and a solid progressive.

How is that progressive and pro immigrant.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/237011-gutierrez-buries-the-hatchet

An absolute fool. For the jury, this is who this poster is claiming to be anti-immigrant. One of our best and strongest voices for immigration reform and a progressive across the board.

http://gutierrez.house.gov/

This is a right wing attack.

when you insinuated he was anti-immigrant. An easily provable lie.

Immigrants. Which is also a provable lie.

I have never said what he did was ok. You are stacking it up in the dishonesty column. Along with spreading a lie with respect to one of our parties strongest voices on immigration reform.

Please back up your three assertions.

1) "But it's okay for Gutierrez to insinuate" Where did I say it was okay? One link is all you need. It is clear you have it.
2) Your claim that Gutierrez is not a progressive
3) Your claim that he is anti-immigrant

Those are the only three claims you have made. Every one is a lie. It should be extremely easy for you to back up #1. Extremely easy. It is clear you already have a post of mine saying that his actions were "okay". The next two you are going to have more problems with. The op went is supporting Michael Conaway in order to do it. How far will you go to attempt to prove your false claim?

That's all I was saying.

Every assertion you have made to me here is false. Every one. You made the false assertions and are asking me to back myself up. Very strange. Make things up and then ask someone to do tricks for you.

Please read my last post. Back up your blatantly false assertions about me and an the extremely solid progressive Gutierrez.

Wow.

fuck this toadie.

Not sure who you are referring to as a toadie, not sure it matters. You are surrounded by a sea of agreement on the issue of Sanders.

2 months- almost to the day:



Hilary Clinton, The Center for American Progress and "Inclusive Prosperity"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026510496

I have several other posts about it.

Got that?

Seriously? You know exactly who he is. You used him yesterday. His name was all over the national journal article you were praising as truth of corruption. It was also mentioned multiple times to your op. Seems you didn't read my post here either. I understand this is how you plan on backing down from your support of Conaway yesterday. Still won't work as it is blatantly obvious you know who he is. You are doing opposition research against progressives. You know who you are siding with. You posted directly to a reply addressing Conaway himself. It is in black and white. You are very familiar with his work. You used him to attack a progressive. Literally, you replied to comments directly questioning your support of his committee yesterday. He was your proof of corruption. He is who you used. Not in a slight of hand way. It was very transparent.

1) You used an article from the National Journal touting a committee headed up by Conaway as you conducted opposition research against a progressive.
2) Conaway was mentioned multiple times in the article you posted as proof of corruption.
3) You responded to posts just yesterday questioning your use of Conaway to attack a solid progressive.
4) You now act as if you don't even know who he is.

I didn't note the author. It was just one of several articles about that slime, Gutierrez.

And no, I'm doing opposition research on smearing corrupt lying asswipes.

And the article from NJ was hardly my only link.

Love how YOU excuse lying smears against Sanders.

Another way to attempt to act like you don't know who he is. Too funny considering it is all in black and white. His name was mentioned often in the article you posted. Didn't even have to go far. You replied to questions about using him for your opposition research against a progressive. Directly.

For transparency so all can see. Here is the link you used.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/rep-luis-gutierrez-s-house-ethics-investigation-will-continue-20140505

Here is the quote from the link you used.

"Rep. Luis Gutierrez will continue to be investigated by the House Ethics Committee regarding whether he broke House rules by keeping a staffer-turned-lobbyist working and paid by his congressional office—to the tune of more than $590,000 over 10 years, the panel's top leaders said Monday."

By Monday they are talking about a Monday over a year ago. His name was mentioned in the article as being head of the committee exactly two sentences after the over year old quote you used. This was how you started your opposition research findings. It was your first quote and link. Not buried somewhere. You were questioned about him directly.

Same question I asked you yesterday. What is the current state of Conaway's investigation that you have used to smear a good progressive? You refused to answer that yesterday.

This is not about the author of the article you used or about the NJ itself. It is about your support for Conaways witch hunt you are touting in your opposition research against a good progressive.

"Love how YOU excuse lying smears against Sanders. "

Show me one single post where I have excused a lying smear against Sanders. You cannot because that is a lie itself.

It's a throwaway line that is supposed to make people think a wealthy politician who gets into office because the fucking wealthy pay to put them there gives a fuck about income inequality. It will be vaguely used and touted as a shining example. Every time a politician uses that phrase it pisses me off.

a kinder and gentler way of saying "trickle down economics." Almost a compassionate conservative way of expressing that concept.

for free trade deals. Gotta 'share the prosperity' with poor workers around the world, don't you know.

Woot!

very Frank Luntzy.

Doesn't really work for those of us without boats.

But it is not a complete leveling. We will have a global billionaire class & a peon billionaire class. Guess which one Hillary is in. Now guess which one the rest of us are in.

These internet fabrications get stranger by the day.

Info on tax returns released in 2008. While an average of $13 million a year is a hell of a lot of money, it doesn't approach billionaire status. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/clinton-releases-tax-returns/

What should we make of that, cali? See this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026828411

Or does Sanders propose? How should they be implemented?

is disliked.

where people are asking that millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations pay a greater share of taxes to help the needy and afflicted.

"Managing our fiscal health: An improved federal fiscal system of taxation and expenditures can be created to meet the nation's needs, raise revenues fairly, respond to economic downturns, and be fiscally responsible by not escalating government debt relative to the size of the economy over the long run. "

who are working for the same or less money every year while their company profits rise and their bosses/owners benefit. They see it. There really is a sharing problem. Larry Summers? No one knows who he is or gives a shit.

As long as the economic prosperity continues to require assuredly turning the planet into a hot mess, I'll keep trying to limit the reach of its power.

We don't need to share economic prosperity, we need to share economic disparity. At least or until such a time as we are taken seriously and science, education, remediation, renewable energy and sanity can rule the day and enlightenment, the advancement of our species and the love of our children become our only concerns.