Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:58 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 6099
Location: Over there! (last)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6465
Location: Eastern CT coast
I saw an interesting CNN article that Bernie had beat Hillary in a Vermont poll...big headlines, got the the bottom and it was a poll of 400 people with + or - 4.5%. Which means it's a crappy poll, we learned in American government to thro out any poll not exceeding 1200 people and less than + - something like 1 % accuracy.

The inaccuracy of the poll is not important here, what is important is CNN used what they know is an inaccurate poll to give the nod to bernie, which means the ELITE who own big news are giving the nod to Bernie , (conversely, they would remove him).

This was a curiosity to me, what the Elite would do with him. He used to stand up against the elite, (for example a vote against the Iraq invasion when we were desperate for people to vote against it),(which was preceded by a similar vote for it), and then when kowtowing the the Democrat version of the MIC, he began voting for the funding of the wars, which goes along with backing prior invasions of such like Afghanistan...if one votes against the Iraq war once, he can say he did it, and not tell about the subsequent chain od reliably voting for these wars through voting to fund them

This continued as late as last year when Bernie voted to support Israel's massacre of thousands of innocent lives in Gaza as the world watched in horror, (bombed largely by American taxpayer funding through yearly multi-billion dollar grants to Israel, (lobbied by AIPAC).

Bernie has no foreign policy on his web site in the "Issues" section...really? No foreign policy? What doesn't he want his antiwar base to find out? When cornered he did say he would continue the terrorizing and murderous drone wars that Obama exponentially escalated from Bush....

..which means of course that if one's gonna do trillion dollar wars for AIPAC and the MIC, then they don't have money for other needed programs, (and mho is when someone wants others to pay to give them something, they deserve to have their money taken away from them).

Dems like having a candidate who can fool their moral, antiwar base...they did it with Obama, and they may be looking at Bernie the same way.

So I was curious if kowtowing to Israel, AIPAC, and the MIC would get him the nod from the hyper-rich...and it did.

An interesting observation as the rule is, if the elite want him, we don't.

At any rate, the meaning of that CNN article was not it's content...the meaning is Bernie's got the nod from the elite.

_________________
Lesser-evilism is terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6465
Location: Eastern CT coast
Here's the CNN poll I referenced in the above, the nod from the Elite ownership of the media... to some who know the news is pro-elite, that means something..,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politics/ ... hire-poll/

And for those who may not have been exposed...
There are quite a few such articles off the mainstream news...

Bernie Out of the Closet: Sanders’ Longstanding Deal with the Democrats

“The unauthorized Democratic candidate in 1990, Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs, and so on…”

“After being safely elected in November of 1990, Bernie continued to support the buildup while seeking membership in the Democratic Congressional Caucus – with the enthusiastic support of the Vermont Democratic Party leadership. But, the national Democratic Party blew him off, so he finally voted against the war and returned home – and as the war began – belatedly claimed to be the leader of the anti-war movement in Vermont.”

“Since 1991 the Democrats have given Bernie membership in their Congressional Caucus. Reciprocally, Bernie has become an ardent imperialist. Sanders endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In1992 he described Clinton as the ‘lesser of evils,’ (a justification he used to denounce when he was what the local press called an ‘avowed socialist’). By 1996 he gave Clinton an unqualified endorsement. He has been a consistent ‘Friend of Bill’s’ from since 1992. One student I know worked on the Clinton Campaign in 1996 and all across Vermont, Bernie was on the stage with the rest of the Vermont Democratic Party Leadership, while the unauthorized Democratic candidate for his Congressional seat was kept out in the audience.”
...
During the 1990s, the not-so “independent” Congressman Sanders voted for and/or otherwise supported:


* Economic sanctions that killed more than a million Iraqi civilians

* Every U.S. bombing of Iraq from 1992 on

* The sending of U.S. military units to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to threaten Iraq because “we cannot tolerate aggression”

* The objectively racist and mass-incarcerationist Federal Crime bill.

* Every US intervention since elected to Congress–Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.

________________________

Here's another from AlterNet... we gotta get smarter than the foxes...

telling there is no foreign policy section on his web site, got some wool to pull...

Here's one about one of Bernie Bombers staffers resigning rather than being a party to his killing...

Bernie Sanders' Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad

Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.

In his resignation letter to Sanders, former staffer Jeremy Brecher explained the Clinton administartion's position at the time. "While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or partially-NATO forces into Kosovo," wrote Brecher, "...The refusal of the U.S. to endorse such proposals strongly supports the hypothesis that the goal of U.S. policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction."

Brecher's note to Sanders closes with a set of rhetorical questions, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take? My answers led to my resignation."

The attack on Kosovo is hardly the extent of Sanders' hawkishness. While it's true he voted against the Iraq War, he also voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. More recently, he voted in favor of a $1 billion aid package for the coup government Ukraine and supported Israel's assault on Gaza. At a town hall meeting he admitted that Israel may have "overreacted", but blamed Hamas for the entire conflict. After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel's actions, he told critics: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

Brecher's entire letter to Sanders can be read below. The bombing of Kosovo killed between 489 and 528 civilians.

_________________
Lesser-evilism is terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6465
Location: Eastern CT coast
Here's the letter of resignation from his moral staffer:

May 4, 1999

Congressman Bernie Sanders
2202 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC, 20515

Dear Bernie,

This letter explains the matters of conscience that have led me to resign from your staff.

I believe that every individual must have some limit to what acts of military violence they are willing to participate in or support
, regardless of either personal welfare or claims that it will lead to a greater good. Any individual who does not possess such a limit is vulnerable to committing or condoning abhorrent acts without even stopping to think about it.

Those who accept the necessity for such a limit do not necessarily agree regarding where it should be drawn. For absolute pacifists, war can never be justified. But even for non-pacifists, the criteria for supporting the use of military violence must be extremely stringent because the consequences are so great. Common sense dictates at least the following as minimal criteria:

The evil to be remedied must be serious.

The genuine purpose of the action must be to avert the evil, not to achieve some other purpose for which the evil serves as a pretext.





Less violent alternatives must be unavailable.

The violence used must have a high probability of in fact halting the evil.

The violence used must be minimized.

Let us evaluate current U.S. military action in Yugoslavia against each of these tests. Evil to be remedied:

We can agree that the evil to be remedied in this case -- specifically, the uprooting and massacre of the Kosovo Albanians -- is serious enough to justify military violence if such violence can ever be justified. However, the U.S. air war against Yugoslavia fails an ethical test on each of the other four criteria.

Purpose vs. pretext: The facts are incompatible with the hypothesis that U.S. policy is motivated by humanitarian concern for the people of Kosovo:

In the Dayton agreement, the U.S. gave Milosevic a free hand in Kosovo in exchange for a settlement in Bosnia.

The U.S. has consistently opposed sending ground forces into Kosovo, even as the destruction of the Kosovar people escalated. (While I do not personally support such an action, it would, in sharp contrast to current U.S. policy, provide at least some likelihood of halting the attacks on the Kosovo Albanians.)

According to the New York Times (4/18/99), the U.S. began bombing Yugoslavia with no consideration for the possible impact on the Albanian people of Kosovo. This was not for want of warning. On March 5, 1999, Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema met with President Clinton in the Oval Office and warned him that an air attack which failed to subdue Milosevic would result in 300,000 to 400,000 refugees passing into Albania and then to Italy. Nonetheless, "No one planned for the tactic of population expulsion that has been the currency of Balkan wars for more than a century." (The New York Times, 4/18/99). If the goal of U.S. policy was humanitarian, surely planning for the welfare of these refugees would have been at least a modest concern.

Even now the attention paid to humanitarian aid to the Kosovo refugees is totally inadequate, and is trivial compared to the billions being spent to bomb Yugoslavia. According to the Washington Post (4/30/99), the spokeswoman for the U.N. refugee agency in Macedonia says, "We are on the brink of catastrophe." Surely a genuine humanitarian concern for the Kosovars would be evidenced in massive emergency airlifts and a few billion dollars right now devoted to aiding the refugees.





While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or partially-NATO forces into Kosovo. Such proposals have been made by Russia, by Milosevic himself, and by the delegations of the U.S. Congress and the Russian Duma who met recently with yourself as a participant. The refusal of the U.S. to endorse such proposals strongly supports the hypothesis that the goal of U.S. policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction.

Less violent alternatives: On 4/27/99 I presented you with a memo laying out an alternative approach to current Administration policy. It stated, "The overriding objective of U.S. policy in Kosovo -- and of people of good will -- must be to halt the destruction of the Albanian people of Kosovo. . . The immediate goal of U.S. policy should be a ceasefire which halts Serb attacks on Kosovo Albanians in exchange for a halt in NATO bombing." It stated that to achieve this objective, the United States should "propose an immediate ceasefire, to continue as long as Serb attacks on Kosovo Albanians cease. . . Initiate an immediate bombing pause. . . Convene the U.N. Security Council to propose action under U.N. auspices to extend and maintain the ceasefire. . . Assemble a peacekeeping force under U.N. authority to protect safe havens for those threatened with ethnic cleansing." On 5/3/99 you endorsed a very similar peace plan proposed by delegations from the US Congress and the Russian Duma. You stated that "The goal now is to move as quickly as possible toward a ceasefire and toward negotiations." In short, there is a less violent alternative to the present U.S. air war against Yugoslavia.

High probability of halting the evil: Current U.S. policy has virtually no probability of halting the displacement and killing of the Kosovo Albanians. As William Safire put it, "The war to make Kosovo safe for Kosovars is a war without an entrance strategy. By its unwillingness to enter Serbian territory to stop the killing at the start, NATO conceded defeat. The bombing is simply intended to coerce the Serbian leader to give up at the negotiating table all he has won on the killing field. He won't." (the New York Times, 5/3/99) The massive bombing of Yugoslavia is not a means of protecting the Kosovars but an alternative to doing so.

Minimizing the consequences of violence. "Collateral damage" is inevitable in bombing attacks on military targets. It must be weighed in any moral evaluation of bombing. But in this case we are seeing not just collateral damage but the deliberate selection of civilian targets, including residential neighborhoods, auto factories, broadcasting stations, and hydro-electric power plants. The New York Times characterized the latter as "The attack on what clearly appeared to be a civilian target." (5/3/99) If these are acceptable targets, are there any targets that are unacceptable?

The House Resolution (S Con Res 21) of 4/29/99 which "authorizes the president of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with the United States' NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" supports not only the current air war but also its unlimited escalation. It thereby authorizes the commission of war crimes, even of genocide. Indeed, the very day after that vote, the Pentagon announced that it would begin "area bombing," which the Washington Post (4/30/99) characterized as "dropping unguided weapons from B-52 bombers in an imprecise technique that resulted in large-scale civilian casualties in World War II and the Vietnam War."

It was your vote in support of this resolution that precipitated my decision that my conscience required me to resign from your staff. I have tried to ask myself questions that I believe each of us must ask ourselves:

Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take?

My answers led to my resignation.

Sincerely yours,

Jeremy Brecher

_________________
Lesser-evilism is terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6465
Location: Eastern CT coast
MHO...

If someone thinks the Elite owned media AND the Democratic party are going to give the nod to someone good for the people, (rather than someone good for the elite), they haven't been paying attention.

If Bernie were any good, the media and DNC would dump him just like they dumped Kucinich.

You can't play the rich man's game, and win.

MHO...

_________________
Lesser-evilism is terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 5396
baddy wrote:
Evil to be remedied:


hahaha

Evil redeeming evil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6465
Location: Eastern CT coast
downer mydnyte wrote:
baddy wrote:
Evil to be remedied:


hahaha

Evil redeeming evil.

Lol yeah, it's recursive...evil can only breed evil, and good can only breed good.

Hmmmm evil can destroy good, and good can destroy evil.

What was that MLK said about violence is a descending spiral, begetting that which it seeks to destroy,


More bombs, that's the answer!

Bomb that evil right out of existence...

_________________
Lesser-evilism is terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 6819
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
baddy wrote:
An interesting observation as the rule is, if the elite want him, we don't.
A cocksucker by proxy.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:53 am
Posts: 2531
Location: Hamilton, NJ
Bernie's war votes are troubling. His concentration on the fact that real wages have not increased since the 1970s has made income inequality a subject that is now part of the debate, that's a good thing.

_________________
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little bit ugly on the side)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 6099
Location: Over there! (last)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 6099
Location: Over there! (last)
Image

Saturday Night Live!
Democratic Debate Cold Open


Quality can be adjusted up to 1080p HD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmwGAd1L-o


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 5396
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:50 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:48 am
Posts: 10205
Location: Anywhere but here
This dipshit has actually said that the cause of terrorism is global warning. hahahahahahahahah idiot.

He sounds like Jackie Mason doing the voice of the aardvark from the Pink Panther cartoons!

Image

_________________
Make your checks payable to QUENTIN ROBERT DeNAMELAND, Greatest Living Philostopher Known to Mankind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7860
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
When you read between the lines, people who are bashing Israel and paranoia driven conspiracy theories regarding the media, such as Baddy does, makes me wonder if he really has a veiled Right Wing agenda disguised behind what appears to be a rhetorical pseudo-peace meme fest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:10 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:48 am
Posts: 10205
Location: Anywhere but here
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
When you read between the lines, people who are bashing Israel and paranoia driven conspiracy theories regarding the media, such as Baddy does, makes me wonder if he really has a veiled Right Wing agenda disguised behind what appears to be a rhetorical pseudo-peace meme fest.


Lay off the drugs you idiot.

_________________
Make your checks payable to QUENTIN ROBERT DeNAMELAND, Greatest Living Philostopher Known to Mankind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:57 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:48 am
Posts: 10205
Location: Anywhere but here
3 Reasons Why You Should Get Ready to “Feel The Bern” IN YOUR WALLET!!

http://hypeline.org/3-reasons-why-you-s ... ur-wallet/

Image

To many on the Left, electing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders seems ideal. He promises a “Political Revolution” of equality, restoration, and endless amounts of free stuff. But does Bernie Sanders have the ability to follow through with all that he promises? And if he does, are his ideas really what’s best for America? Let’s take a further look into Bernie’s blanket statements.

1) Free is not always better. Bernie Sanders is all about free stuff. He promises free college, non-discriminatory welfare, and free medical care. If the government provides unlimited amounts of free goods and services, the funding has to come from somewhere. So where will all of that money come from? You guessed it, our taxes. Free stuff doesn’t fall from the sky. When the country is already in $18 trillion of debt, there has to be a trade off.

2) Financial success will result in punishment. According to his website Bernie Sanders vows to “lift the cap on taxable income above $250,000.” Senator Sanders believes that more tax revenue will be gained by increasing taxes on the wealthy. The reality is that the more taxes are raised on higher earners and corporations, the more they will move their personal and corporate income out of the country. The tax burden will then shift to the middle class in order to fund the endless programs envisioned by the Left. Shouldn’t we instead be creating a tax structure and robust economy that will attract and retain not only U.S. but foreign investment?

3) Money does’t grow on trees. If Sanders is elected president, he promises to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. What is wrong with that? Minimum wage jobs are meant for those entering the workforce. These jobs are not meant to be a career or profession. As Americans, we should be constantly striving for progress. As the minimum wage increases, prices of goods and services will be forced to go up. This creates an endless cycle of earning more and spending more. Are you sensing a trend here? Instead of raising the minimum wage on entry level jobs, we should create a robust economy that will foster career level positions with higher wages and opportunity.

_________________
Make your checks payable to QUENTIN ROBERT DeNAMELAND, Greatest Living Philostopher Known to Mankind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 6:19 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:48 am
Posts: 10205
Location: Anywhere but here
SANDERS IS PUSSY!!

He showed extreme weakness by letting those hoodrat BLM bitches hijack HIS fucking rally. He's a joke.

Look at this weak pathetic turd!!!!

Image

Image

_________________
Make your checks payable to QUENTIN ROBERT DeNAMELAND, Greatest Living Philostopher Known to Mankind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6003
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
When you read between the lines, people who are bashing Israel and paranoia driven conspiracy theories regarding the media, such as Baddy does, makes me wonder if he really has a veiled Right Wing agenda disguised behind what appears to be a rhetorical pseudo-peace meme fest.


I suggest you watch some of the videos on Live Leak of Israeli landgrabbers stoning Palestinian children as they're walking to school; in Palestinian land. I seen a 6 year old girl have her eye knocked out by a rock that was thrown by a screaming Jewish mother who had settled in their land.

Or maybe you should watch the videos of Palestinian kids, being shot by Israeli police for playing in the street. Palestinian families have to build prisons around their houses so they cannot be attacked.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6003
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
jaypfunk wrote:
3 Reasons Why You Should Get Ready to “Feel The Bern” IN YOUR WALLET!!

http://hypeline.org/3-reasons-why-you-s ... ur-wallet/

Image

To many on the Left, electing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders seems ideal. He promises a “Political Revolution” of equality, restoration, and endless amounts of free stuff. But does Bernie Sanders have the ability to follow through with all that he promises? And if he does, are his ideas really what’s best for America? Let’s take a further look into Bernie’s blanket statements.

1) Free is not always better. Bernie Sanders is all about free stuff. He promises free college, non-discriminatory welfare, and free medical care. If the government provides unlimited amounts of free goods and services, the funding has to come from somewhere. So where will all of that money come from? You guessed it, our taxes. Free stuff doesn’t fall from the sky. When the country is already in $18 trillion of debt, there has to be a trade off.

2) Financial success will result in punishment. According to his website Bernie Sanders vows to “lift the cap on taxable income above $250,000.” Senator Sanders believes that more tax revenue will be gained by increasing taxes on the wealthy. The reality is that the more taxes are raised on higher earners and corporations, the more they will move their personal and corporate income out of the country. The tax burden will then shift to the middle class in order to fund the endless programs envisioned by the Left. Shouldn’t we instead be creating a tax structure and robust economy that will attract and retain not only U.S. but foreign investment?

3) Money does’t grow on trees. If Sanders is elected president, he promises to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. What is wrong with that? Minimum wage jobs are meant for those entering the workforce. These jobs are not meant to be a career or profession. As Americans, we should be constantly striving for progress. As the minimum wage increases, prices of goods and services will be forced to go up. This creates an endless cycle of earning more and spending more. Are you sensing a trend here? Instead of raising the minimum wage on entry level jobs, we should create a robust economy that will foster career level positions with higher wages and opportunity.


A libertarian publication that is about as credible as Tom & Jerry doesn't really count for shit Jaypeespunked.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6003
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Image
Image
Image
Image

The Zionist regime are every bit as evil as the Nazis.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6003
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/28/donald-trump-suffers-his-largest-drop-in-polls-after-week-of-controversy?CMP=fb_us

Donald Trump’s support among Republicans has dropped 12 points in less than a week, marking the presidential hopeful’s biggest decline since he started leading the field in July, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Trump is still in the lead, with 31% of people surveyed naming him as their preferred candidate in a rolling poll over five days that ended on 27 November. However, that number was down from a peak of 43% on 22 November.

The sharp drop follows criticism of Trump for comments he made in the aftermath of the Paris attacks on 13 November in which 130 people died.

Following the attacks, Trump told an NBC News reporter that he would support a plan requiring all Muslims within the United States to be registered to a special database, which his critics likened to the mandatory registration of Jews in Nazi Germany.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6003
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/23/donald-trump-accused-of-hate-campaign-after-claiming-thousands-cheered-on-911

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been accused of running a hate campaign after he claimed to have seen “thousands” of people cheering the 9/11 attacks from New Jersey.

Trump first told the story on Saturday at a rally in Alabama, as he stressed the need for greater surveillance, including monitoring certain mosques, in the wake of the Paris attacks.

“I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering,” Trump said.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 2941
I recall seeing footage of Muslims cheering after the attacks, but they were in places like Iran and Iraq.

There were a few Israelis arrested for dancing and celebrating and videotaping the attack...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... aelis.html

...from the Jersey side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 5379
Location: Vancouver, BC
TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:
jaypfunk wrote:
3 Reasons Why You Should Get Ready to “Feel The Bern” IN YOUR WALLET!!

http://hypeline.org/3-reasons-why-you-s ... ur-wallet/

Image

To many on the Left, electing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders seems ideal. He promises a “Political Revolution” of equality, restoration, and endless amounts of free stuff. But does Bernie Sanders have the ability to follow through with all that he promises? And if he does, are his ideas really what’s best for America? Let’s take a further look into Bernie’s blanket statements.

1) Free is not always better. Bernie Sanders is all about free stuff. He promises free college, non-discriminatory welfare, and free medical care. If the government provides unlimited amounts of free goods and services, the funding has to come from somewhere. So where will all of that money come from? You guessed it, our taxes. Free stuff doesn’t fall from the sky. When the country is already in $18 trillion of debt, there has to be a trade off.

2) Financial success will result in punishment. According to his website Bernie Sanders vows to “lift the cap on taxable income above $250,000.” Senator Sanders believes that more tax revenue will be gained by increasing taxes on the wealthy. The reality is that the more taxes are raised on higher earners and corporations, the more they will move their personal and corporate income out of the country. The tax burden will then shift to the middle class in order to fund the endless programs envisioned by the Left. Shouldn’t we instead be creating a tax structure and robust economy that will attract and retain not only U.S. but foreign investment?

3) Money does’t grow on trees. If Sanders is elected president, he promises to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. What is wrong with that? Minimum wage jobs are meant for those entering the workforce. These jobs are not meant to be a career or profession. As Americans, we should be constantly striving for progress. As the minimum wage increases, prices of goods and services will be forced to go up. This creates an endless cycle of earning more and spending more. Are you sensing a trend here? Instead of raising the minimum wage on entry level jobs, we should create a robust economy that will foster career level positions with higher wages and opportunity.


A libertarian publication that is about as credible as Tom & Jerry doesn't really count for shit Jaypeespunked.


Dude, if Bernie Sanders were elected President Of The United States Of America, since he wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 p/h (Walmart can't even afford an average wage of $15 p/h!) and tax many businesses over 90%, that would UTTERLY DESTROY the private sector, especially since it's already on its last legs.

The above article is correct. STOP being so fucking stupid.

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BERNIE SANDERS
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6465
Location: Eastern CT coast
Nice to see ya TCS.

We lost a friend a couple of weeks ago. 44, he left behind his wife and 4 girls, the silent killer got him.

She's looking at holding things together and attempting to hold the house, the familiar roof over the kids head, cuz they need stability extra now. She doesn't know if it can be done.


And I think about how most Americans are going along, many unhappily, but going along with the choices they are being given by the elitist media...it seems nothing's changed and it's going to be one of these bombers again for sure, because all the leading Dems, and all the leading R's are bombers for sure.

And I wonder, I really wonder how so many can feel sincere loss for Paris, but no loss for the many many times more casualties inflicted as a result of their votes.

Palestinians, at arguably the heart of the whole mess, brushed aside, while billions of our taxpayers dollars are voted to be taken away from needed programs at home in the US each year, and given to Israel to buy more weapons (from US manufacturers), to support a 700:1 kill ratio on Palestinians.

Yes, Israeli deaths hurt just as much, each one leaves family members behind, just like Derek who left us last week.


Why is it deaths on one side are all that's considered, and deaths we vote for are never mentioned, even resisted and ignored if mentioned. Paris is felt by so many Americans, but they feel not the multitudes more, seemingly they don't matter, not one iota...

Why do so many vote for bombers, never stopping give a thought to Palestinians or Afghans, or Syrians, or Yemenis, or Kosovars, or Libyans, or Pakistanis, or Somolians, or Chad[ians?], or Lebanese, and on and on...

Why don't people refuse to vote for bombers? Just shut him down, "nope, he's a bomber."

We'd get a better class of candidates if we eliminated bombers.

So why do they go along so?

Do I have it right? Is that the situation? If yes, anyone care to fathom a guess why?

My only guess is yes, we are that controlled by the news. It generates the public consensus, what we talk about and more importantly, don't talk about.

That's my only guess.

_________________
Lesser-evilism is terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: just plain doug and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group