no, there is a fourth..

1) kept the left busy chasing nothings… will o wisps leading them to their fates
2) has now forced his opposition to clear and approve him (Which i said he was doing)
3) exposes them, as you will see the question is more, why let us do that? to which i will say “dont correct an enemy when they are making a mistake”
4) ran out the clock on their election positions – the “now what” move

and now, there will be a bunch more fun!!
as they finalize the point…

the more he resisted and threw up a stink, the more they thought he was hiding. Ultimately we forget that HE KNOWS HIS OWN CARDS, and he forced all the others to show theirs, and bet on him being a projection of them

oh, whats more fun?
well now he has had practice… havent you noticed he constantly adjusts
* * *
Artfldgr – I think you have that right.

And quoting them to the point where it is difficult telling whether Aesop is writing something or just copying and pasting another article whose author is some passive voice nobody knows or cares about.

* * *
Actually, I’m very careful about separating my words from those I am quoting, and “copying and pasting” is much more efficient than retyping all that verbiage.
Pixels are cheap, fortunately, and my budget exactly covers my expenditures.

The authors of all that c&p may be passive (you are right on that count) voices, but they are voices that quite a large number of people know about, and ones who get paid for their punditry, which we — alas — do not.
Whether anyone cares or not: who cares? — feelz are irrelevant, so long as they produce some interesting factoids to contemplate.

The interpretation of the writing isn’t necessarily the meaning put down by the writer. This causes a kind of aping or mimick effect where people believe that they know the truth when they read something. This mostly affects those obsessed with so called holy texts such as self proclaimed christians but it also affects Americans that fell for media lies again and again and again and again.

All this reading and writing becomes meaningless after a certain point. Is America going to kill their traitors or not?

Figure out what you are going to do and gain from that, instead of endlessly reading idiots online writing about this scandal or that scandal or how their media buddies and married couples and relatives did a big baddie against bad troll trum.

No wonder the Deep State treats Americans as livestock and harvests your child for sex trafficking. It’s like people aren’t even trying to fight back. They just talk about fighting. They think if they read enough Holy Texts they will become ascended or a god or Saved from something or other. If people read enough about pro or anti Trum, then Trum may die or be reborn as the Savior of America somehow. They think what they are reading is actually useful, such as those who read a book about swimming and will jump into the deepest part of a lake or ocean. Lack of wisdom. Knowledge does not necessarily come from reading text. Reading a book about surgery doesn’t lead them to be good at surgery now. Yet people think if they read politics and all that jazz, that it will help them save or destroy their country. These individuals are hollow inside and have mistaken wisdom and knowledge as something they can copy from others by reading their words. This may be a useful action, for a child or monkey, but for a human so called adult… they need experience, not just the WORD.

Well, that’s going to take a little bit more action and less reaction.

And quoting them to the point where it is difficult telling whether Aesop is writing something or just copying and pasting another article whose author is some passive voice nobody knows or cares about.

The Bush playbook. That worked well, didn’t it ?

To the political left Pinochet is worse, if possible, than Trump. Chile is the richest country in South America years after Pinochet is gone.

Yes, that’s a prudent assumption.

But surely, with that hefty political axe of his to grind and that mock-rational demeanor, it would be prudent to assume that he’s always “snowing” you (unless, of course, one happens to agree with his particular perversities and/or is in utter awe of his “intellectual” credentials).

In fact, one can truly appreciate the professional aspect of his perverse arguments and the control he exerts over his personal mania.

He is impressive and hypnotizing. Until one wakes up and realizes he’s talking total rot.

What is interesting in particular is the pushback he’s been getting on his overarching linguistic theories over the past decade or so

“Half Truths of Noam Chomsky”.

That’s giving him way, way too much credit….

For example, consider what Chomsky (more or less ) said about Chavez: “Yes there were problems, but he greatly reduced poverty.”

I consider that a half-truth, for a number of reasons. The stats say that from 1998-2013, poverty WAS reduced in Venezuela. The following points make the “Hugo reduced poverty” narrative not as impressive as it seems. Moreover, the below points were apparent when oil was selling @ $100/BBL.

1) Other Latin American countries had similar or better records than Chavista Venezuela in reducing poverty. Venezuela ranked about in the middle from ~1998-2013 in Latin America. It wasn’t that exceptional.

2) Poverty reduction is dependent on a growing economy. If you want to distribute more money, you need more money to distribute. Even with a trillion dollars in oil revenue, Venezuela’s economic growth from 1998-2013 ( here measured in per capita income) lagged behind Latin America’s and the rest of the world: 15% for Venezuela, 29% for Latin America, and 44% for the rest of the world. Which strongly implied mismanagement of the trillion dollars in oil revenue. Thus no surprise regarding what happened when the price of oil fell.

3)As Clifton Ross pointed out, one would hope that with a trillion dollars in oil revenue, some of that would reach the poor.

As another example of Chomsky’s half truths, in Year 501 he pontificated on the Pinochet regime. Reading Chomsky, one would conclude that there was a massive failure in public health under the Pinochet regime. For example, Chomsky pointed out a typhoid epidemic- which did occur. Under the Pinochet regime, Chile’s Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality went from 8th best to 3rd best in Latin America. Which indicates that contrary to what Chomsky wrote, the Pinochet regime had a good record in improving public health.

If you don’t know the subject about which Chomsky is pontificating, he can snow you.