Zappa.com

Ronny , I posted that article because it does have some truth to it. It doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as it substantiates points I was trying to make.

Your poster is designed to look like fact when it is not that black and white.
Yes , Blue states may have more money floating around than in red states but your poster does not take into account many , many variables to which that poster alludes to. It does not address the buying power of the different states or the value of that same dollar and how it is used in different states.

One example.

My small little 6 room house , sitting on .99 of an acre is accessed at a little over 90k here.
That same plot of land would be 5x that much in CA and probably 3x that where you are.
It's what I could afford and it serves the same purpose as a small 6 room house in CA or your part of the world. I don't need 2.5 million to buy the same piece of property here that it would take to buy in other parts of the country. In the same vein , I don't need 35.00 / hr to live here that I would need in a state like Florida , CA or NY. We could both have the same 1000 sq ft house on the same 1 acre plot but one would be cheaper than the other because of buying power and location.

To simply state that Blue states have more money floating around than red states , without looking at all the variables , is pretty simple thinking.

Sorry you fell for it.

_________________
may you have the bank account of a republican and the sex life of a democrat.

What state do you live in pedro

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."

Ohio

_________________
may you have the bank account of a republican and the sex life of a democrat.

The current one is running for a bigger office.
Please don't help him.

_________________
may you have the bank account of a republican and the sex life of a democrat.

Kasich is a better choice than Obama, I know many folks in Ohio, I'm from western ,Pa.

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."

Kasich is a jobs killer.



Sanders, Hillary and Biden have much better economic records. The numbers prove this, not the partisan "Go Team" mentality.

So that's why Clinton had the largest economic gains in US history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ ... ll_Clinton


That's ok JPFAG, it's your Constitutional right to be a dumb fuck.

Space bro is a LIAR

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."

I'm not sorry to break it to you BS, the numbers don't lie. You not liking them doesn't change the fact that they are correct and 100% accurate. You won't like this either...





Robert Reich nails it.


Zappa was right about Republicans/Conservatives -

Oh - I thought he was a "lair". Make up your mind (which shouldn't take long - small jobs never do).

_________________

Never argue with stupid people; they will drag you
down to their level and then beat you with experience.

_________________
I'm petulant, and I'm having a frenzy...

Why Republicans Vote for Bernie

By Thom Hartmann

Ann Coulter knows who she wants to be the Democratic nominee for president, and who that person is, well, it may surprise you.
She wants Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, and thinks that if Bernie gets the nod, he’ll beat whoever the Republicans come up with to run against him.
You won’t hear this often on this show, but Ann Coulter is right.

If Bernie Sanders ends up being the Democratic nominee for president, and it looks more and more every day like he will be, his Republican opponent is going to have a very hard time beating him.
And that’s because of all the Democratic candidates running, Bernie Sanders has the best chance of capturing Republican votes.
I've seen how Bernie does this, up close and personal.

Despite its reputation as a place filled with liberal hippies, Vermont, like most of rural northern New England, is home to a lot of conservatives.
Anyone running for statewide office there needs to win these conservatives’ votes, and Bernie is great at doing that.
Back in 2000 when Louise and I were living in Vermont, it wasn’t all that uncommon to see his signs on the same lawn as signs that said “W for President.”
Seriously, I’m not kidding.

And as NPR’s Morning Edition found out last year, some of Bernie’s biggest fans are in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom, the poorest and most conservative part of the state.
It’s people from the Northeast Kingdom who’ve overwhelmingly elected Bernie to almost 20 years in Congress and two straight terms as senator, and it’s people like them in the rest of the country who will probably send Bernie to the White House if he gets the Democratic nomination for president.
So why is that?

Why is Bernie Sanders, a socialist, so popular with people who should hate "socialism"?
The answer is pretty simple.
While Americans disagree on social issues like gay marriage and abortion, they’re actually pretty unified on the bread and butter economic issues that Bernie has made the core of his campaign.
In fact, a recent poll by the Progressive Change Institute, shows that Americans overwhelmingly agree with Bernie on key issues like education, healthcare, and the economy.

Like Bernie, 75 percent of Americans poll support fair trade that “protects workers, the environment, and jobs.”

71 percent support giving all students access to a debt-free college education.

71 percent support a massive infrastructure spending program aimed at rebuilding our broken roads and bridges and putting people back to work.

70 percent support expanding Social Security.

59 percent support raising taxes on the wealthy so that millionaires pay the same amount in taxes as they did during the Reagan administration.

58 percent support breaking up the big banks.

55 percent support a financial transaction or Robin Hood tax.

51 percent support single payer healthcare, and so and so on.

Pretty impressive, right?
And here’s the thing - supporting Social Security, free college, breaking up the big banks, aren’t “progressive” policies, they’re just common sense, and 60 years ago they would have put Bernie Sanders smack dab in the mainstream of my father’s Republican Party.
This is why Ann Coulter is so scared of Bernie becoming the Democratic nominee.
She knows that he speaks to the populist, small “d” democratic values that everyday Americans care about, regardless of their political affiliation.
That’s the really radical part of Bernie’s 2016 campaign, and what’s what maybe, just maybe, might make him the 45th President of the United States.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

Let's do the same thing again...and hope for something different

_________________
.

BINGO!

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

If you like Bernie S the last thing you should want is for him to become president. That will be the end of him.

I'd prefer if the person I dislike the most became president. It's easier that way. No delusions.

Good point.

_________________
Everytime we picked a booger we'd flip it on this one winduh. Every night we'd contribute, 2, 3, 4 boogers. We had to use a putty knife, man, to get them damn things off the winduh. There was some goober ones that weren't even hard...

Hmm, I didn't know any Zappa cover bands were running.

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.

_________________
.

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.

_________________
.

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

_________________
.