Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[Ulysses G.]

All the democrats argue about is who is going to give away the most stuff. It is not very interesting.

[NovaBlue05]

"The politicians are put there to make you think you have freedom of choice...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwmnMR0RbXU

[sirineou]

There isn't much public excitement for Bern and Hillary debating.

"GOP Easily Outdrawing Democrats in Debate Ratings." - Wall Street Journal.

Last week's Democrat debate drew 8.03 million viewers. The last Republican debate (N. Carolina) drew 13.2 million.

Democrats have so much to be excited about. Yawn.

Perhaps if Bernie called Hillary that word which rimes with witch but starts with a B and Hillary compared him to a bodily orifice used for excrement.?

You know like the Republican debates.

Ps : in an unrelated note. Braking news. Justice Scalia just passed away, RIP

Obama to nominate new Justice, and change the balance of the court

Edited February 14, 2016 by sirineou

[helpisgood]

"The politicians are put there to make you think you have freedom of choice...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwmnMR0RbXU

NovaBlue, you should have added that your link is from a bit from the great George Carlin. I almost didn't click your link.

George had been telling it like it really is for many years.

It's a shame he's no longer with us.

Thanks for the link!

Edited February 14, 2016 by helpisgood

[helpisgood]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

Sanders is not a socialist anymore than Obama was a socialist back in the early days of his presidency when "socialist" became one of the many code words for the "n-word". It is thrown at Sanders in a similar ad hominen fashion. And Sanders is not quite arguing, he remains a bit muddled, for taking money away from people who earned it but from people who are paying themselves far more than they are worth to society and whose income, for the most part, is technically "unearned" income as that is the majority of the income of the 1%. And that is the income that the classical economists like Adam Smith wished the economy to be free of and is largely what they meant by a free market, free of unearned income accumulating to the rentiers. Sanders needs to bring on board some of the better known heterodox economists who can argue more eloquently and more precisely than he why there needs to be an economic revolution against the orthodoxy, not to mention the falsehoods, of neo-liberal economics. Simply arguing for more progressive taxation is not enough.

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

In other words, how much of my salary that I work for do these who preach they are entitled to it deserve? As my signature says: Socialists reject the idea that the government serves the people and embrace the idea that the government rules the people.

As for Pimay1's signature, which is as follows:

"The death toll for socialism exceeds 100 million in the 20th century. Socialists reject the idea that the government serves the people and embrace the idea that the government rules the people."

I think lannarebirth has it right in post 327:

"Speaking of which, neither is your signature, but I'm sure you know that already.

"There, fixed it for you:

"The death toll for (sic) socialism communist totalitarianism exceeds 100 million in the 20th century."

And I would add:

Yes, there's a conflation of socialism with communist totalitarianism. It might be from someone still wrapped up in Cold War rhetoric and propaganda. I understand that Norway, the UK and Canada (NATO countries) have major socialist programs. I don't recall anyone sane accusing them of being brutal Stalinist regimes.

Like I have said before, "socialism" is a broad term.

Edited February 14, 2016 by helpisgood

[up2u2]

All the democrats argue about is who is going to give away the most stuff. It is not very interesting.

If you actually look at Bernie's policies they 'give away' absolutely nothing. Publicly funded health care, education tuition and pharmaceuticals are paid for. So nothing is for free. It is a moderate realignment of Social policy that reflects the values and principles of the community. Rather than investing in weaponry and wars and Corporate Welfare and lower taxes and more profit for Big Business and Big Pharma the community will shift its focus to investing in Health, education and pharmaceuticals and providing full time workers with a liveable wage.

If you are a hateful racist and enjoy being spiteful to your fellow citizens and greed and power for the few is your thing then GOP debates play right into your phobias and fears and reflect back to you your misguided values.

Democrat debates are more about crucial policy issues and solutions to those important key issues and attracts a more intelligent more informed viewer who isn't tuning in to watch people being hateful and nasty.

GOP debates are for people who enjoy people behaving badly.

Democrat debates are for the more educated and want real issues and policies discussed.

[lannarebirth]

All the democrats argue about is who is going to give away the most stuff. It is not very interesting.

If you actually look at Bernie's policies they 'give away' absolutely nothing. Publicly funded health care, education tuition and pharmaceuticals are paid for. So nothing is for free. It is a moderate realignment of Social policy that reflects the values and principles of the community. Rather than investing in weaponry and wars and Corporate Welfare and lower taxes and more profit for Big Business and Big Pharma the community will shift its focus to investing in Health, education and pharmaceuticals and providing full time workers with a liveable wage.

If you are a hateful racist and enjoy being spiteful to your fellow citizens and greed and power for the few is your thing then GOP debates play right into your phobias and fears and reflect back to you your misguided values.

Democrat debates are more about crucial policy issues and solutions to those important key issues and attracts a more intelligent more informed viewer who isn't tuning in to watch people being hateful and nasty.

GOP debates are for people who enjoy people behaving badly.

Democrat debates are for the more educated and want real issues and policies discussed.

Here's the thing I don't get about these people complaining about their taxes. Their taxes are going now to support corporations that don't pay people enough to exist. Consequently their taxes are being paid to subsidize these corporations, while the workers pay no taxes at all. I think they really haven't looked at the tax plan. Lower income workers are going to be paying a lot more in taxes than they do now. They're paying nothing for all the government services they receive now. YOU ARE!

[SpokaneAl]

All the democrats argue about is who is going to give away the most stuff. It is not very interesting.

If you actually look at Bernie's policies they 'give away' absolutely nothing. Publicly funded health care, education tuition and pharmaceuticals are paid for. So nothing is for free. It is a moderate realignment of Social policy that reflects the values and principles of the community. Rather than investing in weaponry and wars and Corporate Welfare and lower taxes and more profit for Big Business and Big Pharma the community will shift its focus to investing in Health, education and pharmaceuticals and providing full time workers with a liveable wage.

If you are a hateful racist and enjoy being spiteful to your fellow citizens and greed and power for the few is your thing then GOP debates play right into your phobias and fears and reflect back to you your misguided values.

Democrat debates are more about crucial policy issues and solutions to those important key issues and attracts a more intelligent more informed viewer who isn't tuning in to watch people being hateful and nasty.

GOP debates are for people who enjoy people behaving badly.

Democrat debates are for the more educated and want real issues and policies discussed.

No, those give always are absolutely not paid for. Sanders, like every other politician of every persuasion before him promises that they will be paid for, and then the money confiscated is never enough. Expenses for new and so called improved programs always exceed actual revenue.

I do agree with your comments concerning wars and weaponry - politicians on both sides have no problem in spending more and more in these areas and committing others to fight wars that frankly I have yet to understand the reasoning behind.

I do understand that the nucleus of this thread is that one should love Sanders and also that I am a minority in that I disagree with virtually all of his positions. That said, I do get weary that if one is on the other side of the argument, one is a obviously racist, ignorant, greedy or worse.

Is it not possible that each of us wants what is best, in our opinion, for America and Americans, and we just disagree strongly on how to obtain that goal?

Now if only someone running for president would talk seriously about lowering the deficit and the debt.

Edited February 14, 2016 by SpokaneAl

[Pimay1]

Sanders is not a socialist anymore than Obama was a socialist back in the early days of his presidency when "socialist" became one of the many code words for the "n-word". It is thrown at Sanders in a similar ad hominen fashion. And Sanders is not quite arguing, he remains a bit muddled, for taking money away from people who earned it but from people who are paying themselves far more than they are worth to society and whose income, for the most part, is technically "unearned" income as that is the majority of the income of the 1%. And that is the income that the classical economists like Adam Smith wished the economy to be free of and is largely what they meant by a free market, free of unearned income accumulating to the rentiers. Sanders needs to bring on board some of the better known heterodox economists who can argue more eloquently and more precisely than he why there needs to be an economic revolution against the orthodoxy, not to mention the falsehoods, of neo-liberal economics. Simply arguing for more progressive taxation is not enough.

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

In other words, how much of my salary that I work for do these who preach they are entitled to it deserve? As my signature says: Socialists reject the idea that the government serves the people and embrace the idea that the government rules the people.

As for Pimay1's signature, which is as follows:

"The death toll for socialism exceeds 100 million in the 20th century. Socialists reject the idea that the government serves the people and embrace the idea that the government rules the people."

I think lannarebirth has it right in post 327:

"Speaking of which, neither is your signature, but I'm sure you know that already.

"There, fixed it for you:

"The death toll for (sic) socialism communist totalitarianism exceeds 100 million in the 20th century."

And I would add:

Yes, there's a conflation of socialism with communist totalitarianism. It might be from someone still wrapped up in Cold War rhetoric and propaganda. I understand that Norway, the UK and Canada (NATO countries) have major socialist programs. I don't recall anyone sane accusing them of being brutal Stalinist regimes.

Like I have said before, "socialism" is a broad term.

First post removed due to too many posts. Now that you have expounded on the last part of my post can you expound on the first part? I'd like to know your opinion.

[helpisgood]

Pimay1,

Since you do not bother to defend it, are you thus conceding that your "death toll" signature statement is inaccurate?

Edited February 14, 2016 by helpisgood

[Pimay1]

Pimay1,

Since you do not bother to defend it, are you thus conceding that your "death toll" signature statement is inaccurate?

Absolutely not. As Vladimir Lenin stated "the goal of socialism is communism". Socialism grows directly out of capitalism. It is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism. So how about the first statement of my OP?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Pimay1

[up2u2]

All the democrats argue about is who is going to give away the most stuff. It is not very interesting.

If you actually look at Bernie's policies they 'give away' absolutely nothing. Publicly funded health care, education tuition and pharmaceuticals are paid for. So nothing is for free. It is a moderate realignment of Social policy that reflects the values and principles of the community. Rather than investing in weaponry and wars and Corporate Welfare and lower taxes and more profit for Big Business and Big Pharma the community will shift its focus to investing in Health, education and pharmaceuticals and providing full time workers with a liveable wage.

If you are a hateful racist and enjoy being spiteful to your fellow citizens and greed and power for the few is your thing then GOP debates play right into your phobias and fears and reflect back to you your misguided values.

Democrat debates are more about crucial policy issues and solutions to those important key issues and attracts a more intelligent more informed viewer who isn't tuning in to watch people being hateful and nasty.

GOP debates are for people who enjoy people behaving badly.

Democrat debates are for the more educated and want real issues and policies discussed.

No, those give always are absolutely not paid for. Sanders, like every other politician of every persuasion before him promises that they will be paid for, and then the money confiscated is never enough. Expenses for new and so called improved programs always exceed actual revenue.

I do agree with your comments concerning wars and weaponry - politicians on both sides have no problem in spending more and more in these areas and committing others to fight wars that frankly I have yet to understand the reasoning behind.

I do understand that the nucleus of this thread is that one should love Sanders and also that I am a minority in that I disagree with virtually all of his positions. That said, I do get weary that if one is on the other side of the argument, one is a obviously racist, ignorant, greedy or worse.

Is it not possible that each of us wants what is best, in our opinion, for America and Americans, and we just disagree strongly on how to obtain that goal?

Now if only someone running for president would talk seriously about lowering the deficit and the debt.

You are actually a Bernie voter. There is a compassionate, fair minded and caring person inside of you. You just lost your way somewhere along the line.

[SpokaneAl]

All the democrats argue about is who is going to give away the most stuff. It is not very interesting.

If you actually look at Bernie's policies they 'give away' absolutely nothing. Publicly funded health care, education tuition and pharmaceuticals are paid for. So nothing is for free. It is a moderate realignment of Social policy that reflects the values and principles of the community. Rather than investing in weaponry and wars and Corporate Welfare and lower taxes and more profit for Big Business and Big Pharma the community will shift its focus to investing in Health, education and pharmaceuticals and providing full time workers with a liveable wage.

If you are a hateful racist and enjoy being spiteful to your fellow citizens and greed and power for the few is your thing then GOP debates play right into your phobias and fears and reflect back to you your misguided values.

Democrat debates are more about crucial policy issues and solutions to those important key issues and attracts a more intelligent more informed viewer who isn't tuning in to watch people being hateful and nasty.

GOP debates are for people who enjoy people behaving badly.

Democrat debates are for the more educated and want real issues and policies discussed.

No, those give always are absolutely not paid for. Sanders, like every other politician of every persuasion before him promises that they will be paid for, and then the money confiscated is never enough. Expenses for new and so called improved programs always exceed actual revenue.

I do agree with your comments concerning wars and weaponry - politicians on both sides have no problem in spending more and more in these areas and committing others to fight wars that frankly I have yet to understand the reasoning behind.

I do understand that the nucleus of this thread is that one should love Sanders and also that I am a minority in that I disagree with virtually all of his positions. That said, I do get weary that if one is on the other side of the argument, one is a obviously racist, ignorant, greedy or worse.

Is it not possible that each of us wants what is best, in our opinion, for America and Americans, and we just disagree strongly on how to obtain that goal?

Now if only someone running for president would talk seriously about lowering the deficit and the debt.

You are actually a Bernie voter. There is a compassionate, fair minded and caring person inside of you. You just lost your way somewhere along the line.

You, once again, made my point. Your insinuation is that if I am not a Sanders fan I am not compassionate, fair minded and caring.

[Pimay1]

All the democrats argue about is who is going to give away the most stuff. It is not very interesting.

If you actually look at Bernie's policies they 'give away' absolutely nothing. Publicly funded health care, education tuition and pharmaceuticals are paid for. So nothing is for free. It is a moderate realignment of Social policy that reflects the values and principles of the community. Rather than investing in weaponry and wars and Corporate Welfare and lower taxes and more profit for Big Business and Big Pharma the community will shift its focus to investing in Health, education and pharmaceuticals and providing full time workers with a liveable wage.

If you are a hateful racist and enjoy being spiteful to your fellow citizens and greed and power for the few is your thing then GOP debates play right into your phobias and fears and reflect back to you your misguided values.

Democrat debates are more about crucial policy issues and solutions to those important key issues and attracts a more intelligent more informed viewer who isn't tuning in to watch people being hateful and nasty.

GOP debates are for people who enjoy people behaving badly.

Democrat debates are for the more educated and want real issues and policies discussed.

No, those give always are absolutely not paid for. Sanders, like every other politician of every persuasion before him promises that they will be paid for, and then the money confiscated is never enough. Expenses for new and so called improved programs always exceed actual revenue.

I do agree with your comments concerning wars and weaponry - politicians on both sides have no problem in spending more and more in these areas and committing others to fight wars that frankly I have yet to understand the reasoning behind.

I do understand that the nucleus of this thread is that one should love Sanders and also that I am a minority in that I disagree with virtually all of his positions. That said, I do get weary that if one is on the other side of the argument, one is a obviously racist, ignorant, greedy or worse.

Is it not possible that each of us wants what is best, in our opinion, for America and Americans, and we just disagree strongly on how to obtain that goal?

Now if only someone running for president would talk seriously about lowering the deficit and the debt.

You are actually a Bernie voter. There is a compassionate, fair minded and caring person inside of you. You just lost your way somewhere along the line.

Good one. Made me laugh.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Pimay1

[Pimay1]

If you actually look at Bernie's policies they 'give away' absolutely nothing. Publicly funded health care, education tuition and pharmaceuticals are paid for. So nothing is for free. It is a moderate realignment of Social policy that reflects the values and principles of the community. Rather than investing in weaponry and wars and Corporate Welfare and lower taxes and more profit for Big Business and Big Pharma the community will shift its focus to investing in Health, education and pharmaceuticals and providing full time workers with a liveable wage.

If you are a hateful racist and enjoy being spiteful to your fellow citizens and greed and power for the few is your thing then GOP debates play right into your phobias and fears and reflect back to you your misguided values.

Democrat debates are more about crucial policy issues and solutions to those important key issues and attracts a more intelligent more informed viewer who isn't tuning in to watch people being hateful and nasty.

GOP debates are for people who enjoy people behaving badly.

Democrat debates are for the more educated and want real issues and policies discussed.

No, those give always are absolutely not paid for. Sanders, like every other politician of every persuasion before him promises that they will be paid for, and then the money confiscated is never enough. Expenses for new and so called improved programs always exceed actual revenue.

I do agree with your comments concerning wars and weaponry - politicians on both sides have no problem in spending more and more in these areas and committing others to fight wars that frankly I have yet to understand the reasoning behind.

I do understand that the nucleus of this thread is that one should love Sanders and also that I am a minority in that I disagree with virtually all of his positions. That said, I do get weary that if one is on the other side of the argument, one is a obviously racist, ignorant, greedy or worse.

Is it not possible that each of us wants what is best, in our opinion, for America and Americans, and we just disagree strongly on how to obtain that goal?

Now if only someone running for president would talk seriously about lowering the deficit and the debt.

You are actually a Bernie voter. There is a compassionate, fair minded and caring person inside of you. You just lost your way somewhere along the line.

You, once again, made my point. Your insinuation is that if I am not a Sanders fan I am not compassionate, fair minded and caring.

Of course you aren't compassionate, fair minded and caring. I'm in the same boat. Only liberals have these traits.

[helpisgood]

Pimay1,

Since you do not bother to defend it, are you thus conceding that your "death toll" signature statement is inaccurate?

Absolutely not. As Vladimir Lenin stated "the goal of socialism is communism". Socialism grows directly out of capitalism. It is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism. So how about the first statement of my OP?

Are you serious? Do you really believe Lenin's rhetoric as he was justifying his party's takeover of his country? Well, Lenin said it, so it must be true. Are you saying that communist plotters are preparing to takeover Norway, the UK, and Canada any day now? Next, socialist Canada will be sending tanks across the border to crush the evil American capitalists.

So, if we followed your Leninist advice, should the USA dismantle such socialist programs as social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc? After these senior citizens, the disabled, the poor, etc. have their much needed funds cut off, we'll explain that we are concerned about Lenin's threat. "Sorry that you cannot buy the medicine that keeps you alive, because Lenin's warned us of an eventual communist takeover."

You do know that Lenin died and the USSR no longer exists, right?

Thanks for the discussion and the offer to continue it with you, but I am due back to the planet Earth.

[up2u2]

You are actually a Bernie voter. There is a compassionate, fair minded and caring person inside of you. You just lost your way somewhere along the line.

You, once again, made my point. Your insinuation is that if I am not a Sanders fan I am not compassionate, fair minded and caring.

Exactly!

[lannarebirth]

Pimay1,

Since you do not bother to defend it, are you thus conceding that your "death toll" signature statement is inaccurate?

Absolutely not. As Vladimir Lenin stated "the goal of socialism is communism". Socialism grows directly out of capitalism. It is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism. So how about the first statement of my OP?

So, according to you, communism grows out of capitalism. I could have saved a lot of Poli Sci and Econ credit hours if I'd known that. You've a real gift, you should teach.

[lannarebirth]

You, once again, made my point. Your insinuation is that if I am not a Sanders fan I am not compassionate, fair minded and caring.

Of course you aren't compassionate, fair minded and caring. I'm in the same boat. Only liberals have these traits.

I'd be more inclined to believe you if you didn't have your gun pointed at me.

[Pimay1]

Pimay1,

Since you do not bother to defend it, are you thus conceding that your "death toll" signature statement is inaccurate?

Absolutely not. As Vladimir Lenin stated "the goal of socialism is communism". Socialism grows directly out of capitalism. It is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism. So how about the first statement of my OP?

Are you serious? Do you really believe Lenin's rhetoric as he was justifying his party's takeover of his country? Well, Lenin said it, so it must be true. Are you saying that communist plotters are preparing to takeover Norway, the UK, and Canada any day now? Next, socialist Canada will be sending tanks across the border to crush the evil American capitalists.

So, if we followed your Leninist advice, should the USA dismantle such socialist programs as social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc? After these senior citizens, the disabled, the poor, etc. have their much needed funds cut off, we'll explain that we are concerned about Lenin's threat. "Sorry that you cannot buy the medicine that keeps you alive, because Lenin's warned us of an eventual communist takeover."

You do know that Lenin died and the USSR no longer exists, right?

Thanks for the discussion and the offer to continue it with you, but I am due back to the planet Earth.

You're welcome for the discussion and you do have a wild imagination that's for sure. Have a good trip and on the way maybe you can figure out how much of my salary you deserve.

[sgtsabai]

Just your fair share.

[helpisgood]

Pimay1,

Since you do not bother to defend it, are you thus conceding that your "death toll" signature statement is inaccurate?

Absolutely not. As Vladimir Lenin stated "the goal of socialism is communism". Socialism grows directly out of capitalism. It is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism. So how about the first statement of my OP?

Are you serious? Do you really believe Lenin's rhetoric as he was justifying his party's takeover of his country? Well, Lenin said it, so it must be true. Are you saying that communist plotters are preparing to takeover Norway, the UK, and Canada any day now? Next, socialist Canada will be sending tanks across the border to crush the evil American capitalists.

So, if we followed your Leninist advice, should the USA dismantle such socialist programs as social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc? After these senior citizens, the disabled, the poor, etc. have their much needed funds cut off, we'll explain that we are concerned about Lenin's threat. "Sorry that you cannot buy the medicine that keeps you alive, because Lenin's warned us of an eventual communist takeover."

You do know that Lenin died and the USSR no longer exists, right?

Thanks for the discussion and the offer to continue it with you, but I am due back to the planet Earth.

You're welcome for the discussion and you do have a wild imagination that's for sure. Have a good trip and on the way maybe you can figure out how much of my salary you deserve.

It was not part of my imagination that the USSR collapsed, as did your very overly simplistic and wholly unsubstantiated analysis of economics and politics that you never can defend.

By the way, isn't China moving more and more to capitalism despite Chairman Mao? They must not have studied your theories.

[Pimay1]

Just your fair share.

"One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlements’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence." Thomas Sowell

[sgtsabai]

Let me explain something to you. First you may think that pistol, looks a bit like a Dan Wesson but avatar to small to tell, makes you a bad man, you are very, very wrong. I'm better, both at gunfighting and at long range. That is an SKS (from Vietnam) in my saddle scabard and what you don't see is the .357 S&W 586 service revolver under the duster. Second if you don't understand the word entitledment as it is used by the right wingnuts, then you better go look at what isn't "entitlement". You think SS is an entitlement? You think food stamps are an "entitlement" when you've worked hard but the job ended or you work for some corporation like wallymart? You think Medicare is an entitlement when you've paid into it all your working life? You think our hard earned Veterans benefits are entitlements? Oh wait, perhaps you think we are entitled with your oh so gracious presences here, WRONG! I worked for every damn santang I get, I'm not "entitled" to anything. I earned them, some earned them much more than I, comprende' ese'? Did you? I paid my fair share, even those that earn so little pay they pay no income tax pay their fair share when the go to the store. Do you, or have you ever paid your fair share, and I don't mean what you think is a fair share, we all know that is 0. And your signature is still wrong, wrong, wrong. Get an education.

[sirineou]

Let me explain something to you. First you may think that pistol, looks a bit like a Dan Wesson but avatar to small to tell, makes you a bad man, you are very, very wrong. I'm better, both at gunfighting and at long range. That is an SKS (from Vietnam) in my saddle scabard and what you don't see is the .357 S&W 586 service revolver under the duster. Second if you don't understand the word entitledment as it is used by the right wingnuts, then you better go look at what isn't "entitlement". You think SS is an entitlement? You think food stamps are an "entitlement" when you've worked hard but the job ended or you work for some corporation like wallymart? You think Medicare is an entitlement when you've paid into it all your working life? You think our hard earned Veterans benefits are entitlements? Oh wait, perhaps you think we are entitled with your oh so gracious presences here, WRONG! I worked for every damn santang I get, I'm not "entitled" to anything. I earned them, some earned them much more than I, comprende' ese'? Did you? I paid my fair share, even those that earn so little pay they pay no income tax pay their fair share when the go to the store. Do you, or have you ever paid your fair share, and I don't mean what you think is a fair share, we all know that is 0. And your signature is still wrong, wrong, wrong. Get an education.

"Get an education."

You know what they say sgtsabai "a little education is a dangerous thing" and I am sorry to say some people have very little.

[Johpa]

Just your fair share.

"One of the consequences of such notions as is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence." Thomas Sowell

Yes, that little aphorism seems to apply to many folks ranging from hedge fund directors to the Walton family members to your typical investment bankers: all people who make no contribution to economic growth but who personally benefit from a tax system largely written by their lobbyists and voted upon by the politicians who they own via campaign contributions. Yes of course there are some lazy individuals willing to live a trivial and hollow life at the expense of others. But I would argue that their cost to the larger society is minimal compared to the social costs imposed by the financial elite who make no positive contribution to our society as selling debt only contracts the economy.

[up2u2]

Just your fair share.

"One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlements’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence." Thomas Sowell

The old 'entitlement' chestnut. A favourite 'call to arms' for Conservatives the world over. Those filthy poor, elderly, injured and handicapped people. You know the people least able to defend themselves. Even the most hardened, hateful person would brush a few scraps off the table to a starving dog. However, Right Wing Conservatives would put the boot in. If you are poor or handicapped or injured or elderly you somehow are not human and despised. I expect the hatred wells up from a sense of entitlement that the small amount, quite rightly and humanely paid to the less fortunate are funds that could be transferred into the wealthy elite and Corporate America's tax free offshore Bank accounts. It must keep them awake at night. I am starting to think that far Right Wing Conservative is an illness that all the money in the world cannot cure.

You should take a good hard look at yourself Pimay1. Using the poor and disadvantaged to further your political agenda. Shameful.

[SpokaneAl]

Apparently Sanders is not the first to believe that taking more and more from some will make everything well and good for the rest. I am sure that those Sanders true believers on this thread will discount everything that the good doctor Friedman says because, of course he knows nothing and this time it's different.[url

Edited February 15, 2016 by SpokaneAl

[Pimay1]

Just your fair share.

"One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlements’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence." Thomas Sowell

The old 'entitlement' chestnut. A favourite 'call to arms' for Conservatives the world over. Those filthy poor, elderly, injured and handicapped people. You know the people least able to defend themselves. Even the most hardened, hateful person would brush a few scraps off the table to a starving dog. However, Right Wing Conservatives would put the boot in. If you are poor or handicapped or injured or elderly you somehow are not human and despised. I expect the hatred wells up from a sense of entitlement that the small amount, quite rightly and humanely paid to the less fortunate are funds that could be transferred into the wealthy elite and Corporate America's tax free offshore Bank accounts. It must keep them awake at night. I am starting to think that far Right Wing Conservative is an illness that all the money in the world cannot cure.

You should take a good hard look at yourself Pimay1. Using the poor and disadvantaged to further your political agenda. Shameful.

Wow, looks like I pushed all your guys button. Sgtsabai the gun is a S&W .357 magnum. And no I don't think it makes me anything. I just happen to collect guns all the way back to the civil war area. I have this gun in my collection. I am happy to hear about your prowess with gun fighting and long range. Quite an accomplishment and I'm also happy that you are better than me, congratulations. No matter how good we are, there is always someone better. I couldn't agree with you more about SS, food stamps, Medicare and veteran benefits. My sister was laid off from her job a few years ago and had to depend on food stamps for a few weeks. I can assure you that in my fifty one year working career I paid my fair share. We will have to agree to disagree about my signature. Have a nice day.

Sirinoeu how did you obtain my college transcripts?

Up2u2 what is this with "Those filthy poor, elderly, injured and handicapped people"? Talk about embellishing on a post. Using the poor and disadvantaged to further your political agenda? You are really out in left field with this one.

The entitlement class I was referring to are the people who are fully capable of working but choose not to do so because they think you and I owe them a living and are just too lazy to work. Also in that category are the third and fourth generation welfare recipients who leech off of you and me by having five or six children out of wedlock in order to receive ADC.

It is unconscionable to deny assistance to the poor, elderly, injured and handicapped people. No one in their right mind would advocate this.

It appears that you guys have let hatred and politics blind you to to the fact that just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you that this person doesn't have a right to their opinion. Where is your tolerance, open-mindedness and forbearance of of other people. All three of you guys immediately launched personal attacks on me without having any discussion in order to discern the true meaning of my post. I am above personal attacks and will let yours slide.

[boomerangutang]

Hillary and Bernie can pander to minorities and spout their other soon to be broken promises, but Americans are going to vote against illegal immigration and job losses due to free trade especially with China. Count on it.

If they turn out to be 'broken promises' then it will be because Reps in congress continue to drag their feet as they're so adept at doing.

Speaking of 'losing jobs to China, etc.' There was a segment on David Letterman where Trump was peddling his ties and other clothing, while interjecting how 'We need to keep jobs in the US'. Letterman asked to see one of the ties and asked Trump where they were made. Trump said he didn't know. (how could he not know where his clothing lines were being manufactured?). Letterman then looked closely at the tie, and saw a tiny indication: "MADE IN CHINA." He asked Trump about that. Trump grinned, squirmed in his seat, and tried to change the subject. Yet another of the conveyor belt of inconsistancies coming out of Trump's big mouth. If that's the best the Republican Party can dredge up, then it's a sad state of affairs for them. I almost feel sorry for the Republicans. It's kinda like watching a fat squat kid at a swimming meet, having to compete with sleek buffed competitors.