See SPN Members for more.
Although SPN's member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation, "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government," reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.
In response to CMD's report, SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told national and statehouse reporters that SPN affiliates are "fiercely independent." Later the same week, however, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer caught Sharp in a contradiction. In her article, "Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement?," the Pulitzer-nominated reporter revealed that, in a recent meeting behind closed doors with the heads of SPN affiliates around the country, Sharp "compared the organization’s model to that of the giant global chain IKEA." She reportedly said that SPN "would provide 'the raw materials,' along with the 'services' needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. 'Pick what you need,' she said, 'and customize it for what works best for you.'" Not only that, but Sharp "also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization's often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. 'The grants are driven by donor intent,' she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, 'the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'"
A set of coordinated fundraising proposals obtained and released by The Guardian in early December 2013 confirm many of these SPN members' intent to change state laws and policies, referring to "advancing model legislation" and "candidate briefings." These activities "arguably cross the line into lobbying," The Guardian notes. [/I]
So yeah, a bunch of guys who draw their salaries from right wing anti union billionaires don't like unions. Assuming your household earns sixty thousand a year which is roughly the median household income you're about one point six million out of pocket over the last forty years due to enough fucking idiots being fed bullshit like this to cause them to vote against their economic interests.[/QUOTE]
I am not asking you to explain your views because they are just batshit crazy reactionary tantrums, not even coherent thoughts. It doesn't matter how corrupt the Clintons are, I have never and would never support them. We do not all live in polarised brat camps as perpetual teenagers funnily enough. Meanwhile you jumped on the bandwagon of somebody no less corrupt who is dragging your country through the mire. Is that supposed to prove how independent of thought you are? You are following Mike TV around with your tongue hanging out and you think it is all a joke. [/QUOTE]
Yo. Why are you bringing me into this?
Yes, I think Sargon makes interesting content, but the notion that good content cannot come from a You Tuber is asinine. You have the mainstream spilling propaganda constantly and as you saw with Peterson, they get owned by the smarter You Tuber types out there.
Give me an Akkad video over Owen Jones wanking away in The Guardian yet again with puff opinion pieces that people always disagree with. How on earth do they even get these jobs? Their opinions are often dafter than a fox dressed as a clown breakdancing.