Bernie Sanders for President
 |
| Feel the Bern! |
It's interesting: For every jaw-droppingly stupid move our "leaders" have made over the last thirty-plus years, there is a video available of Bernie Sanders trying to put a stop to it. In fact, they're all over the internet. This has to be the most prescient politician to come along since Abraham Lincoln.
This may be a badly kept secret, but I am supporting Bernie Sanders for president. SURPRISE! I'm not trying to imply that my endorsement means all that much - I really wish it did. Despite one-and-a-quarter million hits in the last four years, my audience, I'll concede, is pretty small when compared with Alternet or the Huffington Post (I'm working on that). All I can do here is give you my reasons for why I believe he would be a good and maybe (dare I say it?) great chief executive.
I attempted a couple of weeks ago to re-register as Democrat (temporarily, I assure you) just so I could cast my vote for Bernie in the upcoming New York primaries. That is what is known as an act of desperation. As it turned out, my efforts were in vain. The nice woman at my local board of elections informed me that in order to vote in this primary season, I should have made the switch back in November. I'm still an independent.
Bernie Sanders is holding up a mirror to American society and forcing all of us to look very carefully at what is being reflected. A lot of people don't particularly care for that image, and many "professional Democrats" are derisively dismissing him as being unelectable - in the same manner they condescended toward the candidacy of an obscure African American politician from Chicago when he sought the White House eight years ago. Bernie is addressing issues that for decades have been ignored by politicians of both parties - issues that are screaming to be dealt with. Too non-telegenic? A case can be made for that. But maybe - just maybe - the stakes are too high this year and we'll be able to get past that. Besides, he'll have the good fortune of running against either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Need I elaborate? I didn't think so.
Too many of us are frightened out of our wits by the label "radical". If Bernie is chosen as Democratic standard bearer at this summer's convention, that is the word the Republican candidate will use to describe him during the autumn campaign. It will probably be the only true thing that will come out of his mouth all year. Bernie Sanders is a radical - very much in the same way that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a radical. At a time in American history when radical change was desperately needed to lift America out of the worst economic crisis in the history of the world, the people - astonishingly - chose to send FDR to Washington in 1933. After he was through saving America, he decided (just for shits and giggles, you understand) to save the world. During his lifetime he was denounced as "a socialist". Today he is remembered as one of the ablest presidents in the history of this country. That's no coincidence.
Would Hillary Clinton be a decent president? I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that her credentials as a true progressive are paper-thin, and that she has an unsettling coziness with Wall Street and the banksters who have made a sport of plundering the American economy for over three decades. If she is the next president of the United States (and this is not merely an assumption on my part, it's a stone-cold fact) not a single one of these bastards will be prosecuted by the Clinton II justice department and sent to prison for their crimes against the American people. That won't be the case under President Sanders - you'd better believe it, baby. A whole lotta chickens are gonna be doin' some serious roosting!
If Hillary gets the nomination this summer, it will be yet another out of examples too voluminous to count, of the Democrats taking a fine bottle of champagne and turning it into donkey piss.
There are some who would roll their eyes and whine, "There they go again! The Left is going to cut off their noses to spite their faces, just as they did sixteen years ago with the candidacy of Ralph Nader!" Bernie Sanders is not Ralph Nader and 2016 is not 2000.
Back then, most of the electorate didn't have a clue (as Nader did) where their sick love affair with right wing politics and politicians was taking their country. That has all changed. The sleeping giant of the American Left is waking up from a long and troubled slumber - and they're pissed. While it's true that we must abandon all hope for most of the deep South and the Midwest, where blind ignorance is part of the cultural heritage, the rest of the nation is beginning to see the light.
Bernie Sanders is a man who is in the right historical place at the right historical time. Would he be a successful president? That all depends upon the ideological makeup of the House and Senate come January 2017. But still, I'd rather have someone living in the White House whom I know to have the interests of the poor and middle class at heart. In this position he would be able to prevent further damage from being done to the workers.
You bet I'm supporting Bernie Sanders. Aren't you?
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
`
AFTERTHOUGHT, 4/8/16:
A friend of mine sent me a YouTube link this morning that contained quite a few scenes from vintage films where a (white) actor says:
"I'm twenty-one, I'm white and I'm free"....
....or variations on that phrase.
It's a classic commentary on the "white privilege" that was taken for granted in this country seventy and eighty years ago. In fact, in too many respects that still is the case (Have you been to a Donald Trump rally recently?) I won't bother sharing the link. You get the idea.
I love classic Hollywood, but there have been too many instances where I'll find myself sitting down to an excellent drama or musical comedy of the era when my enjoyment is shattered by the sudden appearance of the stereotypical Uncle Tom, and the rest of the film is ruined for me. These movies were not created during the Dark Ages. The Hollywood of the thirties and forties was, compared to the rest of the country, a fairly sophisticated place. They ought to have known better.
I feebly attempted to tackle this nasty subject a year-and-a-half ago on the seventy-fifth anniversary of the release of 1939's "Gone With the Wind":
I attempted a couple of weeks ago to re-register as Democrat (temporarily, I assure you) just so I could cast my vote for Bernie in the upcoming New York primaries. That is what is known as an act of desperation. As it turned out, my efforts were in vain. The nice woman at my local board of elections informed me that in order to vote in this primary season, I should have made the switch back in November. I'm still an independent.
Bernie Sanders is holding up a mirror to American society and forcing all of us to look very carefully at what is being reflected. A lot of people don't particularly care for that image, and many "professional Democrats" are derisively dismissing him as being unelectable - in the same manner they condescended toward the candidacy of an obscure African American politician from Chicago when he sought the White House eight years ago. Bernie is addressing issues that for decades have been ignored by politicians of both parties - issues that are screaming to be dealt with. Too non-telegenic? A case can be made for that. But maybe - just maybe - the stakes are too high this year and we'll be able to get past that. Besides, he'll have the good fortune of running against either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Need I elaborate? I didn't think so.
Too many of us are frightened out of our wits by the label "radical". If Bernie is chosen as Democratic standard bearer at this summer's convention, that is the word the Republican candidate will use to describe him during the autumn campaign. It will probably be the only true thing that will come out of his mouth all year. Bernie Sanders is a radical - very much in the same way that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a radical. At a time in American history when radical change was desperately needed to lift America out of the worst economic crisis in the history of the world, the people - astonishingly - chose to send FDR to Washington in 1933. After he was through saving America, he decided (just for shits and giggles, you understand) to save the world. During his lifetime he was denounced as "a socialist". Today he is remembered as one of the ablest presidents in the history of this country. That's no coincidence.Would Hillary Clinton be a decent president? I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that her credentials as a true progressive are paper-thin, and that she has an unsettling coziness with Wall Street and the banksters who have made a sport of plundering the American economy for over three decades. If she is the next president of the United States (and this is not merely an assumption on my part, it's a stone-cold fact) not a single one of these bastards will be prosecuted by the Clinton II justice department and sent to prison for their crimes against the American people. That won't be the case under President Sanders - you'd better believe it, baby. A whole lotta chickens are gonna be doin' some serious roosting!
If Hillary gets the nomination this summer, it will be yet another out of examples too voluminous to count, of the Democrats taking a fine bottle of champagne and turning it into donkey piss.
There are some who would roll their eyes and whine, "There they go again! The Left is going to cut off their noses to spite their faces, just as they did sixteen years ago with the candidacy of Ralph Nader!" Bernie Sanders is not Ralph Nader and 2016 is not 2000.
Back then, most of the electorate didn't have a clue (as Nader did) where their sick love affair with right wing politics and politicians was taking their country. That has all changed. The sleeping giant of the American Left is waking up from a long and troubled slumber - and they're pissed. While it's true that we must abandon all hope for most of the deep South and the Midwest, where blind ignorance is part of the cultural heritage, the rest of the nation is beginning to see the light. Bernie Sanders is a man who is in the right historical place at the right historical time. Would he be a successful president? That all depends upon the ideological makeup of the House and Senate come January 2017. But still, I'd rather have someone living in the White House whom I know to have the interests of the poor and middle class at heart. In this position he would be able to prevent further damage from being done to the workers.
You bet I'm supporting Bernie Sanders. Aren't you?
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
`
A friend of mine sent me a YouTube link this morning that contained quite a few scenes from vintage films where a (white) actor says:
"I'm twenty-one, I'm white and I'm free"....
....or variations on that phrase.
It's a classic commentary on the "white privilege" that was taken for granted in this country seventy and eighty years ago. In fact, in too many respects that still is the case (Have you been to a Donald Trump rally recently?) I won't bother sharing the link. You get the idea.
I love classic Hollywood, but there have been too many instances where I'll find myself sitting down to an excellent drama or musical comedy of the era when my enjoyment is shattered by the sudden appearance of the stereotypical Uncle Tom, and the rest of the film is ruined for me. These movies were not created during the Dark Ages. The Hollywood of the thirties and forties was, compared to the rest of the country, a fairly sophisticated place. They ought to have known better.
I feebly attempted to tackle this nasty subject a year-and-a-half ago on the seventy-fifth anniversary of the release of 1939's "Gone With the Wind":
Mah! Mah! The ol' plantation sho' has changed!
posted by Tom Degan @ 11:45 AM
153 comments
153 Comments:
My plan is to vote for Bernie in the NY Primary, but I have no problem voting for Hillary in the General, if she is indeed the Democratic nominee.
I am dismayed at the "Bernie or Bust" folks, who say they will stay home on election day if Bernie isn't nominated, or worse yet; vote for Trump. That's just nuts!
I'm old enough to have voted for McGovern, Nader, and Howard Dean. They too, excited the young, idealistic, new voters.
For me, this is about the Supreme Court. The next appointees will affect generations to come.
I also worry about the down-ballot Senate and House candidates, as Bernie isn't contributing to their campaigns at all,the way that Hillary has. If we can't at least regain the Senate, it will be another 4-8 years of filibusters and obstruction.
More likely that the dissenters in NY and elsewhere (how many that will be is pure speculation) will vote for Jill Stein, since the Bernie support did not form out of the tradition Democratic party.
Jill Stein is nothing but Nader's mini-me -- a do-nothing who comes out from under a rock every four years to stir shit up and then does NOTHING in between to advance any kind of progressive cause or increase progressive representation in elective office. If she wanted to turn the Greens into something viable, she would start by running for something local.
I intend to vote for President Sanders in the primary and the general election, even if I have to write his name in. Hillary will be a decent President in the short term. However, as history fades into the mid-century, I am positive that her record will be abysmal. That is an indication of her horrid judgment. She has been wrong about everything in a stubbornly consistent fashion.
Actually, Anonymous 7:53 PM the site became shit at 7:53 PM.
The First City of Capitalism
How silver turned Potosí into 'the first city of capitalism'
Potosí was “the first city of capitalism, for it supplied the primary ingredient of capitalism – money”, notes the author Jack Weatherford. “Potosí made the money that irrevocably changed the economic complexion of the world.”
The production of silver in the city exploded in the early 1570s after the discovery of a mercury amalgamation process to extract it from the mined ore, coupled with the imposition of a forced labour system known as the mita. Native Peruvians from hundreds of miles away were forced to travel to Potosí to labour in the mines, then given the back-breaking task of carrying the daily quota of 25 bags of silver ore, each weighing around 45kg, to the surface .
Temperature and humidity differences between the depths of the mine and the surface meant pneumonia and respiratory infections were rife, with one mining boss noting: “If 20 healthy Indians enter on Monday, half may emerge crippled on Saturday.”
The mita imposed by Viceroy Toledo in Alto Peru caused demographic collapse, earning the hill in Potosí a Quechua name meaning “the mountain that eats men”. Writing about a group of 7,000 native Peruvians – taken from their homes far away to work in the mines – one Spanish observer wrote: “Only some 2,000 people return: of the other 5,000, some die and others stay at Potosí or the nearby valleys because they have no cattle for the return journey.”
longside the mita, Toledo’s other reforms were the first serious attempt to organise this boom city. Marshland was drained to open up more space for construction, dividing Potosí into a Spanish and a local district, and creating an intricate system of dykes and drains to fill five artificial lagoons that fed the mills – an extraordinary feat of hydro-engineering that guaranteed a steady supply of silver.
The ore mined by the native workers and African slaves made many Spaniards exceedingly wealthy. Drunk on “the mere fumes of silver”, an author of the time noted that the city’s residents “nurtured such elevated thoughts” – exemplified by mining boss Domingo Beltran, who reportedly proclaimed himself to be among the world’s most important figures: “The Pope in Rome, the King in Spain, and Domingo Beltran in Potosí …”
The city did not just prove fatal to the thousands who died in the mines. Despite Potosí’s flamboyance, it was plagued by murderous disputes between warring Spanish miners, natural disasters and the perils of living at 4,000m, where very little grows. The first Spanish boy to survive birth in Potosí was born in 1584, nearly 40 years after the city’s foundation; in 1624, much of the city’s native Peruvian sector was washed away as the San Salvador dam broke, killing around 200 and causing extensive destruction.
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/21/story-of-cities-6-potosi-bolivia-peru-inca-first-city-capitalism?CMP=share_btn_fb
This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders
Washington Post
"Bernie Sanders sat down with the New York Daily News editorial board last Friday, seeking its endorsement in the upcoming April 19 Empire State primary. It did not go well for the senator from Vermont.
Time and again, when pressed to get beyond his rhetoric on the evils of corporate America and Wall Street, Sanders struggled. Often mightily.
(The Daily News published the full transcript of the interview http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
A few examples make the point.
Here’s an exchange between the editorial board and Sanders on how, specifically, he would break up the biggest banks in the country:
Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?
Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It’s an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.
You’ve got head of, I think it’s, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let’s talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there. ...
Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?
Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.
Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?
Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
And this back-and-forth over the consequences of forcing the closure or fundamental reorganization of the big banks:
Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have ... JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of ...
Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.
Daily News: I get that point. I’m just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don’t understand. So, what I’m asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?
Sanders: I’m not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.
There’s more — lots more — including an exchange over what law, exactly, Wall Street executives broke during the economic collapse and how Sanders would actually prosecute them. But the two passages above give you some idea of how the bulk of the interview went: the Daily News pressing Sanders for specifics and asking him to evaluate the consequences of his proposals, and Sanders, largely, dodging as he sought to scramble back to his talking points.
In Europe, especially in Germany, hoisting a swastika-emblazoned Nazi flag is a crime. For decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought punishment for Nazi murderers, who were responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million people.
Here’s my question: Why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned but not those of socialism and communism? What goes untaught – and possibly is covered up – is that socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind’s history. You say, “Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers, such as the Wall Street occupiers supported by our president, care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They’re trying to promote social justice.” Let’s look at some of the history of socialism and communism.
What’s not appreciated is that Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, the term Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The unspeakable acts of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis pale in comparison with the horrors committed by the communists in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China. Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China’s communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii professor Rudolph J. Rummel’s website and in his book “Death by Government.”
How much hunting down and punishment have there been for these communist murderers? To the contrary, it’s acceptable both in Europe and in the U.S. to hoist and march under the former USSR’s red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle. Mao Zedong has been long admired by academics and leftists across our country, as they often marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving his little red book, “Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung.” President Barack Obama’s communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.
Whether it’s the academic community, the media elite, stalwarts of the Democratic Party or organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children’s Defense Fund, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism – a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined.
Today’s leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from those of Nazi, Soviet and Maoist mass murderers. One does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one has to believe in the primacy of the State over individual rights.
The unspeakable horrors of Nazism didn’t happen overnight. They were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for “social justice.” It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans – who would have cringed at the thought of genocide – who created the Trojan horse for Hitler’s ascendancy. Today’s Americans are similarly accepting the massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice.
If you don’t believe it, just ask yourself: Which way are we headed tiny steps at a time – toward greater liberty or toward more government control over our lives?
Walter Williams
Is Clucky here bleating again?
One wonders who HE supports, given that he can seem to find ONE THING the GOP has done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years.
That's OK, we all KNOW he's a "Trumpie".
Cluckie you sure sem to spend a LOT of time on "Communist" sites.
Is your last name McCarthy by any chance?
Did you miss the day in civics class where they taught the DIFFERENCE between "Socialism" and Communism"
Do you not REALIZE that you have been living under and ENJOYING "Democratic Socialism" all your life?
Mozart,
"LOT of time on "Communist" sites."
You mean like the Washington Post, like Walter Williams (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/)?
If we have "living under and ENJOYING "Democratic Socialism" all our life, why do you want more? Greedy?
I found a pile of rocks in my back yard last week end.
Collectively, they were smarter that you Mozart.
Hurts when the truth is exposed about socialism doesn't it.
Without Capitalism, socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
Walter Williams obviously has the intelligence of a potato.
Hey Chuck Morre(on), socialism will have plenty to redistribute. Without capitalism we will have a society that focuses on meeting basic human needs instead of a society based on hedonism and consumerism. Without capitalism folks will still need food, shelter, clothing and medical assistance. What will change is the absence of the cut-throat every man for himself attitude capitalism breeds as people obtain these basic human needs with GOVERNMENT assistance. You see, THAT is what a government is SUPPOSED to do, not piss money away on endless useless wars that benefit the oligarchs whose businesses produce war equipment. As I have said before, if you capitalist pigs want to play my yacht is bigger than your yacht that's fine, just don't do it at the expense of the 99%. Your greed is what has doomed capitalism. The global economy makes it unnecessary to the oligarchs that Amerika have a strong middle class because they can find their mindless consumers of their useless goods elsewhere in the world. Suckers are born everywhere not just here. So basically we have a government owned by the oligarchs that has no concern whatsoever for the welfare of the majority of the citizens it is supposed to represent. So yeah, I'd vote for Bernie. I just hope Clinton hasn't somehow bought the nomination since in Amerika that's how things work, everything is rigged...
Cluckie, NO ONE wants to END Capitalism altogether, just SOME thiungs that should NOT be "for profit" Education, healthcare, the prison system..
If you want to sel cars make a million bucks if you want, but don't deny healthcare or education to people just ecause they didn't win the birth lottery.
No wonder the only friends you have a rocks.
I noticed you never DID tell us what conservatives have done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years.
Why IS that exactly? Wouldn't it be better to put me in my place with a list?
Ellis
Tell us how things are working out in Venezuela? Or North Korea. They are wonderful socialist countries.
As brilliant black man, Thomas Sowell said,
"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep more of the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody's else's money." Maybe you can explain to Chris Matthews how Bernie's plan are going to be paid for.
If you want heath care, why should I be mandated to pay for it? HOW many people were we told were without healthcare before Obama care and how many are still with out health care? Mozart, does your healthcare cost you more now? If not what are you doing with your $2500 a year savings under Obamacare?
What I find interesting is the number of communist countries who in the past called themselves "socialist". Or the fact that every communist country has had in it's charter or constitution the claim that they were socialist. It is even more insightful that none of these Communist countries, called themselves communists. Truth in advertising fail?
Today the number of communist countries is down to 4 maybe 5. Every one of them adheres to, or proclaims themselves a socialist country. Every one of them fails in comparison with the living standards of capitalist countries. And this is what supporters of socialism are going to get if they have their way. And despite Mozart's rather confusing effort at defusing the facts about socialism, capitalism gives the individual the most freedom to reach their full potential of any system.
See post from earlier thread the Socialist version of Monopoly.
Without Capitalism, socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
Just the Chucks, how are things working out in Israel? Sounds like they've got their own version of what you call socialism:
Health care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory. All Israeli citizens are entitled to basic health care as a fundamental right. Based on legislation passed in 1995, all citizens resident in the country must join one of four official health insurance funds which cover basic medical treatment, but can increase medical coverage and improve their options by purchasing private health insurance. In a survey of 48 countries in 2013, Israel's health system was ranked fourth in the world in terms of efficiency, and in 2014 it ranked seventh out of 51. In 2015, Israel was ranked sixth-healthiest country in the world by Bloomberg rankings.
And their fast-food workers:
In Israel major organizing successes have recently been achieved in the fast food sector as the Histadrut's Working and Studying Youth Trade Union has organized thousands of workers and secured collective agreements in a number of fast food companies.
In McDonald's, workers have established the largest young people's union committee and are close to signing a collective agreement. Recently, workers at Domino's Pizza and Pizza Hut have organized and established union committees.
In total, over the past two years, approximately 8,500 youth were organized in the fast food sector.
And here's a headline from the Times Of Israel:
Netanyahu hails Israel’s ‘leading role’ in addressing climate change
Using your logic, Chucks, Israel is a socialist hell-hole. Maybe we should boycott them? I'd like to hear your opinion on that. You can reply using any name you wish: Sore Loser, Just The Facts, or your most recent "Cthulhu Morre"
Chuck, I'd start a dialogue with you but I know I can't reason with a person as brainwashed as you. Look more to Scandinavian countries to see what socialism is about than to countries run as a dictatorship. Greed is being out collecting more than one needs. No one is asking you to directly pay for anyone's anything. If we are going to use a monetary system for exchange of goods and services than that system has to be fair and not rigged to favor the already in control wealthy. Societal needs must be filled by accumulating revenue from taxing the income of people who earn it ( or in the case of the oligarchs, don't earn it ). The idea is to have everyone contribute in fair proportion as to what they earn. What is fair for the ultra-rich is a MUCH larger percentage of income than for the 99% Why ? Because no one has the right in a society to hoard wealth to detriment of everyone else. That is just plain unethical. So you see Chuckles greed is unethical and the greedy need to be severely taxed as punishment for being greedy. That money can be put to good use to help the 99% who aren't soul-less psychopaths. Chuck will never understand something that is humanistic. Are you actually human, Chuck ?
Chuck, I give you credit for your perseverance, my friend. Talk about a Sisyphean task!
Thanks for the comments from the brilliant economist and professor Dr. Walter Williams.
As for the purpose of the UNITED STATES government as defined in our Declaration and Constitution, it was established with the consent of the governed to secure our God-given rights. Government does NOT give us our rights; it is supposed to protect those blessings of liberty that are inherent in all human beings from God. It is supposed to provide for the common defense and ensure that every person is treated equally under the law. Today, we have insisted that it provide us everything from "clash for clunkers", to Obama-phones, to healthcare. We have grotesquely perverted our government accordingly.
As Chuck intimated, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
What our progressive friends here decry as the grotesque excesses of capitalism with our government is not capitalism at all. It is perverted and twisted crony capitalism, and sadly our government has placed its thumb on the scales of justice and the economy to choose winners and losers, instead of punishing the guilty. It has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect We The People and thus secure our rights accordingly. Those that have perverted the system and screwed others through bribes, "contributions", or what have you like government officials such as Hillary and her Clinton Foundation are a part of the problem.
The solution to the problem is not to elect a self-avowed socialist that has never held a real job outside of government all of his life and to give more "free" stuff to citizens. Hell, we could go back and adopt that foolish socialist's FDR's new human bill of rights and make "government" pay for housing, food, healthcare and even recreation for every last one of us. The only problem is that WE are the government. We are simply taxing ourselves or adding to our $19 trillion in debt.
Already we have over half of the nation that is on some sort of governmental assistance, which has sky rocketed under President Obama's governance. At what point do the minority also say the hell with it and stop working so that the government can provide for them too? And yet our progressives in both major parties are oblivious to it, as long as they can promise goodies in order to maintain their power in office.
Would you give 50% or 75% of your paycheck to have government provide all of your needs, people? If so, then you are the problem. The government was not established to provide you a means of living. It was established to protect our liberties so that we could provide our own living while pursuing happiness. Shame on every last one of you that is capable of providing for yourself and yet insists that the government must pick my pocket to provide for you instead. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! And Bernie Sanders is merely a sad symptom of that problem.
T. Paine and Chuck both receive government checks.
Hey Anonymous (8:14 PM), why don't you ask the government to provide you with a name. :)
Ellis,
I'd be careful of who you call brain washed. If my presented facts counter your beliefs upset you to where you want to retire to a "safe room", then I would question just how hard you have examined locally your beliefs.
"The idea is to have everyone contribute in fair proportion as to what they earn. What is fair for the ultra-rich is a MUCH larger percentage of income than for the 99%" Here's the problem, at current spending rates that will still not produce enough money to pay for Uncle Bernie's pie in the sky dreams.
Next when you say fair share, do you include the over 40% of us who pay no Federal income tax right now?
Here, try this
www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/21463-debunking-the-myth-of-socialist-success-in-scandinavia
"Supporters of Big Government and the nanny state everywhere have for decades glorified the imagined success of Scandinavia's massive welfare states, citing Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland as alleged proof that drastic restrictions on economic liberty can co-exist with prosperity. In the new book Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism, however, academic Nima Sanandaji, Ph.D., makes an iron-clad case showing that the Nordic nations' relative success predates the welfare state. Indeed, the region actually provides bountiful evidence of the benefits of free markets and economic freedom, and of the harm wrought by Big Government."
Indeed, before the emergence of welfare-state policies beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, Sweden was among the most prosperous and fast-growing economies on the planet. Between 1870 and 1936, when Sweden was characterized by relatively free markets, the nation enjoyed the highest rate of growth in the industrialized world. Innovation and entrepreneurship flourished, making Sweden one of the richest countries on Earth. Then came the radical Social Democratic period characterized by an ever-larger and more expensive government. Between 1975 and the mid-1990s — marked by the radical, if short-lived, experiment in “Third Way” socialism — Sweden dropped from being the fourth richest nation in the world down to the 13th richest.
To understand just how damaging the Scandinavian “third way” era was, Sanandaji cites a startling admission by Bo Ringholm, the Social Democratic finance minister of Sweden at the time. “If Sweden had had the same growth rates as the OECD average since 1970, our total resources would have been so much greater that it would be the equivalent of 20,000 SEK [$2,700] more per household per month,” Ringholm is quoted as saying in 2002. And as Sanandaji shows clearly and convincingly, often using government data, a major reason that Sweden's economy did not grow at the rate of other OECD economies during that period was the lack of economic freedom.
Aside from the economic toll, the “third way” period in Sweden and other Scandinavian nations also led to a deterioration of what Sanandaji calls “social capital.”
Check out the link of you wish or you can retreat to the use of ad homones to counter the truth I've presented.
TP
"Already we have over half of the nation that is on some sort of governmental assistance, which has sky rocketed under President Obama's governance. At what point do the minority also say the hell with it and stop working so that the government can provide for them too? And yet our progressives in both major parties are oblivious to it, as long as they can promise goodies in order to maintain their power in office."
Wonder if Uncle Bernie would comment on your words? Or for that matter any of the Marxists who live here. Nah, if history holds true they will just call us Nazis, racist or supporters of a GOP candidate. (talking about you Mozart and Dubya)
"credit for your perseverance", I must, as failure is not an option.
Without Capitalism, socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
Upchuck More: "Maybe you can explain to Chris Matthews how Bernie's plan are going to be paid for."
Please stop being redundant. I already answered that. See the previous post on this blog, time-stamps 6:05 a.m. and 3:50 a.m.
T. Paine, from now on I'll call myself A. Hamilton. Or how about G. Washington? Then I'll be as brave as you. :)
THE HILL
"Democratic senators are growing alarmed about the tough rhetoric coming from the Democratic presidential primary — particularly after Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president.
They fear hard feelings over the fight could linger and hurt the party’s chances of capturing the White House in November.
A poll released earlier this week found that one-quarter of Sanders supporters say they will likely not support Clinton in the fall.
Democratic lawmakers, who support Clinton overwhelmingly, see Sanders as having little chance of capturing a majority of delegates to win the nomination.
They say he should keep that in mind if he decides to stay in the race and should soften his tone, warning he may otherwise drag her down unnecessarily.
“I’m very concerned about the tone. I think it’s inordinately destructive and I think it shouldn’t happen,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), one of the chamber’s most respected senior Democrats. “I think this kind of disparagement doesn’t do Sen. Sanders any good and doesn’t do Sen. Clinton any good and doesn’t do the Democratic Party any good.
Peeks,
Did you read Sander's interview with the NY Daily News?
He hasn't a clue about how to run a bank, and you expect him to understand how to run (or ruin) our economy?
Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money. It brings those burdened by having to live under it, down to the same EQUAL level. How wonderful.
It's been said here more than once that we already live under socialism. I guess that explains the record number of us who do not work, who receive some form of govt assistance, who do not owe Federal income taxes, and a dead in the water GPD. Nirvana here we come, LOL.
Have you ever wondered why since as some claim we already live under socialism, our socialist safety net doesn't shrink? If socialism is the answer, then I have to wonder what was the question these facts point out?
Without Capitalism, socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
Anonymous (9:06 AM), I think that is a great idea for you to choose a moniker and stick with it so we can all discern your comments from those of the ten other "anonymous" people posting here.
I have a good reason to "hide" behind my nom de plume. You see, there are lots of "tolerant" liberals that insist on free speech except when that speech disagrees with them. Some of those people have the potential to affect my family personally. If it were just me, I'd use my real name and tell all of these anti-first amendment "free-speech" people specifically how Stalinistic they are. Cheers to you though!
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~ Margaret Thatcher
Denmark has the highest level of citizen happiness in the world. Eat that fact, instead of the BS of the Far Right.
I see the cult of con-servatism is doing its best to redefine concepts, shred facts, and pronounce their ideas and understanding of the Constitution as the only correct ones. They cannot comprehend the fact most Americans disagree with them, yet they oppose democracy itself to the point they push a dictatorship by their minority.
How anti-American is that?
While they whine about social programs that help the victims of the failure of capitalism, they must ignore the historic failures of de-regulated capitalism and tax cuts that favor the rich. We’ve seen the horrendous failure of de-regulated capitalism from the Great Depression to the Great Bush Recession. De-regulated Capitalism is unjust and rapacious. It needs to be tempered by the socialistic tools the Founders gave us in Constitutional regulation of commerce and provision for the general welfare.
These failed policies of de-regulation and coddling of the corporate elite are all the Right has to offer. They are bankrupt of reason and historical understanding, preferring to adhere to ideology over reality.
They are so fanatic that when their ideology isn't supported by fact and science, the make up their own facts and deny science. Hence, the Big Oil corporate climate PR is held as truth over the scientific consensus. They are also of the same ideology of "corporate PR over science" that the tobacco companies fed them about cancer risk.
And these are the ones who want to impose their anti-democracy dictatorship by the economic elites.
Their bottom line is profits and cost cutting over people. See Flint's water crisis, of which Republicans are taking zero responsibility, and employing deflection, deception and maximum blame of others.
Scapegoating is a hallmark of fascism, not “personal responsibly”. The hypocrisy reeks.
Chuckie shows his willful ignorance in believing socialism and communism are the same. He doesn't seem to understand the Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither democratic nor a republic. It is absolutely NOT democratic socialism.
This shows us he is both an idiot and ideologue.
TP,
"Stalinistic"? Really??
More fascistic rhetoric.
While your internet paranoia is somewhat understandable, we should inform you that since 9-11, violence from the radical Right has killed as many, or even more Americans, than Muslim extremists have.
There, sir, you will find your "Stalinistic intolerance", or more accurately, fascistic far Right intolerance, if you have the intellectual honesty and moral vision to absorb that fact.
We know the ideology of the far Right must employ the demonizing tactics favored by fascists. They sure as hell can't run on the truth of their failed policies of tax cuts for the rich, crony incentives for Big Money, de-regulation of Wall Street and endless militarism.
These far Right policies have failed. And they will fail again. It is ideology, ignorance and reverence of wealth that propel this failed ideology.
Dubya,
Based on the anger of your post, it seem that shining to light of truth on socialism has caused you some angst.
No unexpectedly, you label anything that goes counter to your Marxist beliefs as "BS of the Far Right". Is it "BS of the Far Right" to say America is already Socialist?
Here are some more facts for you to "munch on" as you work through your anger.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/the-danish-dont-have-the-secret-to-happiness/384930/.
The Atlantic must be some right wing BS publication as it disagrees with Dubya, LOL.
The Danish Don't Have the Secret to Happiness
On the face of it, the Danes have considerably less to be happy about than most of us. Yet, when asked, they still insist that they are the happiest of us all.
What is one to make of this?
Over the years I have asked many Danes about these happiness surveys—whether they really believe that they are the global happiness champions—and I have yet to meet a single one of them who seriously believes it’s true. They appreciate the safety net of their welfare state, the way most things function well in their country, and all the free time they have, but they tend to approach the subject of their much-vaunted happiness like the victims of a practical joke waiting to discover who the perpetrator is.
Here’s another convincing theory, posited by a Danish friend of mine: “We always come top of those surveys because they ask us at the beginning of the year what our expectations are,” he said. “Then they ask us at the end of the year whether those expectations were met. And because our expectations are so extremely low at the beginning of the year, they tend to get met more easily.”
You see Dubya, under socialism your expectations are lowered as there is no reason to excel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-gordon/what-the-news-in-the-us-t_b_5442945.html
(another BS far right wing publication, the Huffington Post?)
What the News in the U.S. Gets Wrong About Denmark
"Yes... that’s correct: what the news in the U.S. tells you about Denmark’s population being so happy truly is a load of crap, and the answers to fixing the broken U.S. social and financial system cannot be found there."
Washington Post (another far right wing publication?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/why-denmark-isnt-the-utopian-fantasy-bernie-sanders-describes/
Why Denmark isn’t the utopian fantasy Bernie Sanders describes.
"Denmark is a pretty good place to live but it is by no stretch of the imagination the utopia many in politics and the media in the U.S. claim it to be."
"The difference is, few actually actively seek to move to Scandinavia, for obvious reasons: the weather is appalling, the taxes are the highest in the world, the cost of living is similarly ridiculous, the languages are impenetrable, the food is (still) awful for the most part and, increasingly, these countries are making it very clear they would prefer foreigners to stay away."
Again I ask you Dubya, is America, as has it has been claimed, already Socialist?
Without Capitalism, socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
Colin Holtz in the Guardian does not mince words:
Roads and transportation infrastructure. Educated workforces. Courts and legal systems. Innovations sparked by government funding, such as the internet. ..,[W]hile working and middle-class families pay their taxes or face consequences, the Panama Papers remind us that the worst of the 1% have, for years, essentially been stealing access to Americans’ common birthright, and to the benefits of our shared endeavors.
Worse, many of those same global elite have argued that we cannot afford to provide education, healthcare or a basic standard of living for all, much less eradicate poverty or dramatically enhance the social safety net....
Enough. We have the money to solve our problems. The first step is to stop the global elite from hoarding and hiding it. Cracking down on tax evasion alone will not fund all our priorities, but the Panama Papers do put the lie to the politics of austerity.
It is high time to replace and repeal Reaganomics. Tax cuts for billionaires does NOT generate revenue. Fair taxation for the rich is what they OWE to society for the security and benefits a modern economic structure provides.
If someone violates their patent, they sue in court. They need to pay for that court.
The roads and bridges that carry their product to market? Pay for it.
The public education that provides them with workers who can calculate their earned interest and program their manufacturing centers? Pay for it.
And don't get me started about the tax breaks many corporations extort from state and local governments to locate in their location.
Enough freeloading from the rich. Austerity is not the prescription. To fix the economy, we must first recognize that it's the tax havens, stupid.
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/panama-papers-gop-cant-say-how-do-we-pay
T. Paine, the rights inherent in all human beings come from NATURE, not from God. That is the first fallacy in your argument. The second is your incorrect premise about the purpose and roll of government in a civilized society. Governments existed long before ours came into being. Some were aimed at controlling the population to the advantage of those in power. Others were aimed at maximizing resources and managing resources both human and material to provide the most productive society possible. Ideally in the society that TP advocates capitalism should serve to provide good paying jobs for all that need them and a quality of life commensurate with the technology and resources available. However, we don't have that here in Amerika do we ?? No we have the crony capitalism TP refers to. As a result it becomes necessary for the government to pick up the slack and see that the people struggling to survive as a result of the rampant greed of the oligarchs are able to do so. Socialism is the necessary result of failed capitalism. Thatcher's remark about running out of other peoples' money just proves how selfish and greedy the ultra-rich really are. There is plenty of money, the greedy bastards just refuse to part with it. Instead of being happy keeping just 10,000 times the amount of wealth they need they want to keep 1,000,000 times the amount of wealth they need. Caviar for the rich and dog food for the rest. If they had any sense of ethical altruism they would be voluntarily parting with their ill gotten bounty. BUT NO !! They fight tooth and nail to hide and keep as much as possible. So uncool !! Without crony capitalism, socialism might not be necessary. With crony capitalism, socialism is necessary and certainly warranted. And TP leave God out of your arguments. He doesn't exist in my world. I see in your profile you are a convert to Catholicism. I converted to Atheism myself so take that !!
And yes I am aware of the typo in the above. Should have read ROLE of government. Shit happens !!
"Nature" is purely material in a naturalistic framework. How can matter "bestow" anything? And, how can "rights" (a metaphysical concept) exist in a naturalistic framework? In a naturalistic framework, what we perceive as metaphysical concepts (rights, emotions, love, meaning, etc.) are mirages and arbitrary concoctions to salve the hard reality of meaninglessness and determinism.
You are welcome to your atheism, of course, but at least be logically consistent in your worldview. Sounds like you need to think through it a bit more.
And, if TP needs to leave God out of his arguments, will you do the same and leave your foundational beliefs out of your arguments? A bit of an absurd ask, no?
First, thank you Mr. Morre for giving another very enlightening view about the "wonderfulness" of Denmark's socialist utopia.
Ellis D., Esq., I respectfully disagree with you regarding the origins of our human rights. I understand and respect your atheist beliefs that lead you to conclude this, but I think there is error in your reasoning, sir.
What is "nature"? What authority is it that "nature" commands such that our human rights are given and must be respected? God, on the other hand, is the Divine Creator of all the universe. I cannot think of a more ultimate authority upon which our dignity and rights as human beings is conferred unto us. That heavenly authority far surpasses the "authority" of monarchs, oligarchs, and institutions of man to "grant" rights to the people.
Our founding fathers thought this way too. Their statements of this fact are found in our Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and our Constitution. Governments were established and are established for many reasons, as you stated. Our United States Government, however, was founded in order to secure and protect those inherent rights from God (or nature, as you prefer) and not to establish a means of providing for every citizen. The purpose of OUR government is to protect those rights through a common defense and the proper adjudication and disposition of justice to ensure that each one of us is afforded the ability to provide for ourselves and pursue our own individual happiness, my friend.
Granted, the Constitution is seldom followed these days and there are plenty of corrupt politicians, businessmen, and assorted hucksters that are not held accountable for their crimes under the law and our constitution. That is not the fault of the constitution, however. It is our fault as Americans for not being educated on the issues and thus holding these people accountable under that law. It is not our constitutional republic or capitalism that is at fault. It is We The People for not enforcing that which is already justly codified in law.
And by the way, those things still hold true whether you are a Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, or Atheist, sir. I honestly respect your right to believe as you choose with atheism. I only wish that all Americans would likewise respect my right to believe and worship God as I choose, which is protected under the first amendment. Sadly, that is no longer true these days, and looks very likely to become even worse in the coming years.
Ellis, you and I have had a few debates in the past where we still did not come out seeing eye to eye on issues, but I think we found that we could at least civilly argue our points with each other with some modicum of respect. I hope that continues, as Tom's blog here needs more of that and far less of the juvenile name-calling and diatribes that have caused me to wander away from this site in the past. Cheers to you, sir!
Nature includes consciousness which is what " bestows " rights. My beliefs are consistent. They are based on Peace, Love and Prosperity as opposed to the War, Hate and Greed that the establishment worships. Since the First Amendment allows one to establish no religion it follows that with separation of Church and State governing must be done in a non-secular manner. That leaves us all free to believe as we choose without being coerced or forced to follow religious beliefs of others. If you want to believe in God fine. I just find it odd that so many supposedly religious people are hypocritically unkind, callous and outright mean in their treatment of others. I don't need God to know what's right and what is wrong or how to share wealth and be kind. I guess to me it just comes naturally from nature :-)
Anonymous 4:30PM
"Nature" is purely material in a naturalistic framework. How can matter "bestow" anything? And, how can "rights" (a metaphysical concept) exist in a naturalistic framework? In a naturalistic framework, what we perceive as metaphysical concepts (rights, emotions, love, meaning, etc.) are mirages and arbitrary concoctions to salve the hard reality of meaninglessness and determinism.
Exceptionally well said!
Ellis, sadly you are correct that there are many religious people that are hypocritical and unkind in a myriad of ways. Happily, I also know far more religious people that, while still sinners, strive to live their faith through love, kindness, and taking care of the "least of our brothers". I try to live according to the latter, but often fall short myself.
I truly don't mean to sound antagonistic, but I am merely interested in your reasoning, sir; you find in nature the ability to discern right from wrong and to share and be kind. By that logic, and the laws of nature and the survival of the fittest, doesn't nature also teach some people to do unto others before they do unto you and to get yours first before there is none left? Sadly, I think many folks these days follow that rule of nature rather than your far more enlightened rule of nature, my friend.
It is for that and many other reasons that I don't think nature in and of itself is the final authority of conferring the blessings of our rights.
TP I do respect you Sir and I also respect your beliefs. We can argue about the existence of God forever and never reach an agreement either way because at best there only exists circumstantial evidence of such a Divine Creator of all the universe. So I ask you Sir how did this Divine Creator get created ? Did it create itself ? Or more likely did humans come up with the idea to explain what they did not understand and were frightened by ? I don't comment here as often as I once did because of the childish bickering that goes on. Also I feel that all I've said in the past still holds true and you can see those comments in Tom's archives from 2008-2009 ( shameless plug ) :-)
Thanks to Trumpie Chuckie for the link telling us “because our (Danes) expectations are so extremely low at the beginning of the year, they tend to get met more easily.”
That’s easy for them to say. THEIR expectations, though “low”, are met. Their expectations are health care and education. Ours? Not so much. From your link, “Danes do tend to feel that they get value for money”.
While their expectations get met, we are losing prosperity so the rich prosper. We are losing rights to democratic representation and access to voting. Corporate cash is louder “free speech” than the will of the people.
And did Chuckie read this part? I doubt it.
Booth finds plenty to question in the rest of the world's assumptions about the Nordic miracle, but also lots that we can learn from them.
Q: You emphasize, in the end, that there is a lot that we can learn from the Nordic countries. What is one of the best lessons?
A: At least aim for economic and gender equality. Everyone benefits, so it’s worth a shot, no?
Q: …relative income equality, its free universities, parental leave, subsidized childcare, and national health system. That all sounds pretty good, right?
A: It is fantastic in theory, except that, in Denmark, the quality of the free education and health care is substandard.
"Substandard" is relative. Denmark ranked 15th best in education compared to 27th for the US by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The US ranks lower than Denmark in life expectancy. Not that this matters to profit-over-people “pro-life” con-servative hypocrites.
TP what separates humans from animals is the ability to reason. You are correct about survival instinct and its results. An enlightened mind sees the bigger picture, that doing unto others as you would want them to do unto you is a better plan. If you create a society where people are constantly being shitted on and taken advantage of then you will reap what you sow. If you create a society that is fair and just people will be on board and do what becomes obviously right. Unless you taint it all with greed, hatred and belligerence. While I don't believe in a deity I do believe in concepts in some Eastern religions. Such as the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism and the Chinese Tao. So call me a hypocrite if you like but I separate Philosophy ( which I have a degree in Cum Laude ) from Religion which I feel is used to control and manipulate people. I hope that gives you the insight you are looking for...
"The purpose of OUR government is to protect those rights through a common defense and the proper adjudication and disposition of justice"
Has it become the stereotype conservative who believes the only purpose of government is war and law enforcement? Let business take care of business, and regulate itself. That's what they're about isn't it?
Is this the unifying philosophy of the Right?
They do their utmost to subvert, ignore, or unilaterally define, "regulation of commerce" and "provide for the general welfare".
Cui bono?
Instead they weave their idea of God into the Constitution as they dismantle the mechanism to aid the least of us, who suffer the derision and insults of the far Right as "takers".
Americans' rights and freedoms didn't come from nature, man, king or God.
The slaves knew rights came from the privilege of being a white, male, land-owning citizen of a quasi constitutional democratic republic.
God didn't free them from rich conservative Southern white men.
Abolitionists and former slaves like Frederick Douglass stirred the nation's conscience. Lincoln freed them with his Emancipation Proclamation. The Federal forces against pro-slavery, racist, "states rights" treason freed them.
And finally and officially, the amended Constitution freed them... almost. The former party of Lincoln now shamelessly obstructs and reverses voting rights for minorities in order to hold power. Ripple effects of racism and inequality still emanate from our past and keep us from a better future.
The mentality of those antebellum racist white conservatives curses our nation today.
Ellis,
"Nature includes consciousness which is what " bestows " rights."
Does this mean that nature is inherently good and that the basis for "good" does not depend on God? That rights come from the goodness of nature? That nature being inherently good will do the right thing and there is no need for a God to create a base line for what nature declares is good and consciousness?
If that is what you believe, do you lock your doors at night?
I've responded to Dubya's claim of the "happy Dane", and as I expected Dubya ignores, twists and simply overlooks the most obvious part of the message.
"THEIR expectations, though “low”, are met".... So Dubya, in order for American's to be happy we simply need to lower our expectations?
Now there's some true insight to the future of America as hoped for by our resident Marxists under socialism. Where can I sign up, LOL!
Again I ask you Dubya, is as has it has been claimed, America already Socialist?
"Why is it 'greed' to want to keep the money that you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money"
Without Capitalism, socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
More empty rhetoric.
Yet the Right wants a government big enough to monitor every pregnancy, force women to bear unwanted or deformed children, wage eternal war, maintain a surveillance state and impose the death penalty. Literally taking everything you have, including your life.
"Big enough" for ya? The hypocrisy reeks.
Trumpie responded to my offhand reference, not the point of my post, to the "happy Dane" alright. By quoting an Englishman.
Chuck also offered: They appreciate the safety net of their welfare state, the way most things function well in their country, and all the free time they have,
Thanks.
That would be healthcare, education and more free time with family. Those are much higher expectations than Americans can hope to be met.
Chuckie declares, "Dubya ignores, twists and simply overlooks the most obvious part of the message."
Coming from one who never sees the obvious! LOL!.
I gave more details from the source, but Republican assholes are major assholes, and will deflect, deny and distract.
Expectations of health care and education are met There, not here.
I showed how they compare to the US in education and life expectancy.
Socialism wins.
A hateful liar talking about God is what is wrong with religion. How about that "ISIS propaganda video" lie?
God knows Chuckie is an unrepentant hateful liar.
But TP will praise him anyway. IOKIYAR
It is the failures of capitalism that create the need for socialism.
"More empty rhetoric."
Typical lie response from liar from Marxist Dubya.
"Yet the Right wants a government big enough to monitor every pregnancy, force women to bear unwanted or deformed children, wage eternal war, maintain a surveillance state and impose the death penalty. Literally taking everything you have, including your life." More empty rhetoric from Lying Marxist Dubya. Pure lying fear mongering.
But it wasn't "empty rhetoric" when he believed he could keep his Dr. if he wanted to and Obamacare would save $2500 a year in insurance costs and the ocean was going to swallow up NYC by 2015,and ISIS was JV.
In his typical Marxist fashion, he is retreating from his original, claim which was:
"Denmark has the highest level of citizen happiness in the world. Eat that fact, instead of the BS of the Far Right."
NOT that that has been proven to be a LIE, Marxist Dubya spins into something else, never acknowledging that he LIED!! But that's what Marxists do, they lie, isn't that correct Marxist Dubya?
Marxist Dubya is NOW retreating form his statement that "THEIR expectations, though “low”, are met". The bloom is off your rose Marxist Dubya, you have been exposed, you believe misery loves company. And from your frantic post's I'd say your pretty miserable.
Notice how he is now reverting to swearing in his post's, a sure sign that he is an ANGRY Marxist if there ever was one. The reason liar Marxist Dubya wants socialism is due to it's enormous success (LOL) in Communist countries past and present.
As every one already knows, Communism is a form of govt, socialism is a form of economics. Yet EVERY Communist controlled country followed socialist economics. Wonder if that had anything to do with their collapse? Ever question why these failed communist nations didn't operate under the economic policy's of capitalism? Maybe they would still be in business if they had cause socialism didn't work for them. Socialism sure didn't save them.
So Marxist Dubya wants us to have low expectations and operated under the failed economy policy of socialism. Nice guy, great old fashion American values, LOL!
Isn't America already socialist? Didn't Marxist Dubya post that once?
Without Capitalism, socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
Upchuck More: "Did you read Sander's interview with the NY Daily News?"
Yes, about three-quarters of it. From what I read, I agree with everything he said.
"He hasn't a clue about how to run a bank, and you expect him to understand how to run (or ruin) our economy?"
He doesn't need to know how to run a bank, to run a country. In the same way CEOs don't need to know how to fly a plane, to run an airline; and they don't need to know how to install a windshield, to run an automobile manufacturing company.
Has Donald Trump ever run a bank? Is he qualified to run a bank? Were any of the Republican nominees qualified to run a bank?
"Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money."
Capitalism works until lobbyists control lawmakers and write the laws, and corporations have the same rights as human beings, and monopolies fix and control prices, and investment banks need bailouts from the public sector.
In-a-nutshell, capitalism works until it relies upon socialism to survive.
"[Socialism] brings those burdened by having to live under it, down to the same EQUAL level."
Or those who benefited from it (e.g., the banks), up to a level where they control the whole economy.
"It's been said here more than once that we already live under socialism."
Yes, the whole military-industrial-surveillance complex is a prime and specific example.
"I guess that explains the record number of us who do not work, who receive some form of govt assistance, who do not owe Federal income taxes, and a dead in the water GPD."
No, the disruption you cited is the failure of capitalism, not socialism. Without the government assistance, more people and their families would be living under bridges than do now.
Your sentence started with, "I guess". Yes, and quite a poor guess it was! You're still living in an antiquated version of how economies work. I suggest you start reading "books" and educating yourself. You offer nothing to the conversation when I'm talking about corporate governance and economic events and circumstances of today, and your thought-processes are still back in the 1950s and '60s. It's a totally different world now, but apparently this hasn't occurred to you.
"Have you ever wondered why since as some claim we already live under socialism, our socialist safety net doesn't shrink? If socialism is the answer, then I have to wonder what was the question these facts point out?"
See my answer above. Since I believe you will not, let me briefly explain. It's the unprecedented rise of the military-industrial-surveillance complex (socialism, or more appropriately, "crony-capitalism" -- a faux style of capitalism borne and spawned by the few, for the benefit of the few), and the utter failure of capitalism, as a whole.
“Unlike when I was president, a lot of things are coming apart around the world now. We like to just think about our economic issues, but you have to worry about a collapse in Europe dragging back the American economy. You have to worry about the largest number of refugees since World War II. And all this stuff comes home to roost.”
"We have finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last 8 years behind us."
Bill to Black Lives Matter protesters:
"You are apologists for gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack to murder other black people."
“Maybe you thought they were good citizens. She didn’t! You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter. Tell the truth!”
The comments were in reference to a 1994 crime bill that mandated tougher penalties for nonviolent drug offenders, created new prisons to expand the prison industrial complex, and put additional cops on city streets.
So ol Teflon Bill speaks truth to the BLM gibs-me-dat society that his policies helped create, black snowflakes get mad, and he apologizes for the truth? Unreal.
The last time he back pedaled so quickly after months of stonewalling, was when the truth was revealed with his DNA stain on that blue dress.
At the very least he should tell the snowflakes that he doesn't have to apologize because if you recall, this is the guy who the black racists of the 90s were claiming was "the first black president". amirite?
Always "enlightening" to see the racist words of Smokey Chuck Lagumski. This is just the sort of talk that sends a tingle at Klan meetings.
Bill was slick enough to be one of the finer Republican presidents. Slashed welfare. Tough, as in not smart, on crime. And subservient to Wall Street. Hillary will be another Great Republican President.
Smokey Chuck has a point. That stained dress did way more harm to humanity, and the world, than Bush's war of choice, for crony profit and political gain, that spawned ISIS.
Amirite?
"In the same way CEOs don't need to know how to fly a plane"
A CEO doesn't tell a pilot how to fly a plane, Bernie however tells banks how to operate.
"Has Donald Trump ever run a bank?"
I don't know, is he telling banks how to run?
"Capitalism works until lobbyists control lawmakers and write the laws, and corporations have the same rights as human beings, and monopolies fix and control prices, and investment banks need bailouts from the public sector."
Are you claiming socialism doesn't have these? Are you saying the problem is price fixing and claiming that's capitalism? Your argument makes the case for less govt control of the economy hence more capitalism.
If more control of the economy under socialism is the answer, how come Communist countries, who practiced complete socialist economic control, collapsed?
Dubya,
What no snappy Marxist lies in response to my question" is America already socialist? Running on empty?
Without Capitalism, socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
Dubya,
Bill Clinton was pulled off the campaign trail for a few days after snapping to the Black Lives Matter protesters. After all, Hillary is counting on the blacks to get to the voting booths and pull that Democratic lever for free stuff, amirite? They always vote Democratic, unless they decide to stay home, amirite?
Bill may have hung around Senator Byrd too long. Remember when Bill said in 2008 that Barry should have been serving him coffee? Not much media coverage on that. amirite?
Running on empty?
No. Anyone with average intelligence can see the answer to the stupid question was in plain sight:
They cannot comprehend the fact most Americans disagree with them, yet they oppose democracy itself to the point they push a dictatorship by their minority.
How anti-American is that?
While they whine about social programs that help the victims of failed capitalism, they must ignore the historic failures of de-regulated capitalism and tax cuts that favor the rich. We’ve seen the horrendous failure of de-regulated capitalism from the Great Depression to the Great Bush Recession. De-regulated Capitalism is unjust and rapacious. It needs to be tempered by the socialistic tools the Founders gave us in Constitutional regulation of commerce and provision for the general welfare.
These failed policies of de-regulation and coddling of the corporate elite are all the Right has to offer. They are bankrupt of reason and historical understanding, preferring to adhere to ideology over reality.
Instead of insulting me for not pandering to his ignorance, why not offer some suggestions to improve our economic situation?
Won't happen. All they have is tax cuts for the rich, de-regulation of Big Money, corporate written legislation, and slashing food stamps from hungry children.
Does that cover the GOP agenda?
I forgot. Suppress minority voting rights and deny women reproductive choice. Big authoritarian Government tactics to the core.
Anything to add to enlighten us, "ISIS Trumpie"?
Meanwhile, former Republican "Slimer of the House" Dennis "Family Values" Hastert is in the news again:
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert abused 4 boys, prosecutors say
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/dennis-hastert-sexual-abuse-allegations/index.html
Better blame Nancy Pelosi, amirite?
Smokey Trumpie Chuck is falling behind on his promise:
"When you present facts I will dispute them."
He's been ignoring the facts, probably due to his being too lazy and stupid to dispute them.
Besides, it's far easier to distract and deflect, amirite?
(Thanks Chuckie, for the flattery by imitation.)
It makes me smile. :-)
Uh ho, another Conservative sexual predator.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeremy-durham-tennessee_us_5707c9e7e4b0c4e26a227869
Are they all same?
"Instead of insulting me for not pandering to his ignorance"
The Republican idiot asshole ignored the very answer he demanded just before these words. He doesn’t deserve any answers or respect.
Another reason why:
BTW, accused is NOT the same as guilty,
He means for Hastert, Not so much if it’s a Democrat like Hillary, or any poor black person, amirite?
More of that IOKIYAR hypocrisy and double standards.
why not offer some suggestions to improve our economic situation?
Nothing. Just as expected:
Won't happen. All they have is tax cuts for the rich, de-regulation of Big Money, corporate written legislation, and slashing food stamps from hungry children. Suppress minority voting rights and deny women reproductive choice. Big government authoritarian tactics to the core.
Does that cover the GOP agenda?
“ It’s much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it’s easier to give someone the finger than a helping hand.” – Mike Royko
Chuckie has a well exercised middle finger for the poor and middle class, doesn’t he?
Just like every “good Republican”.
Upchuck More: "A CEO doesn't tell a pilot how to fly a plane, Bernie however tells banks how to operate."
A CEO "tells" pilots where to fly a plane. As far as Sanders, his answers have to do with regulating the investment banks -- not how to run them. I'm not surprised you didn't get that.
"Are you claiming socialism doesn't have these?"
Yes.
"Are you saying the problem is price fixing and claiming that's capitalism?"
I'm saying that it's a problem -- not the problem.
"Your argument makes the case for less govt control of the economy hence more capitalism."
My argument make the case for no partnership of government and business in areas of democracy and decisions regarding commerce. In other words, no fascism. I'm sorry you're not able to understand the distinction.
"If more control of the economy under socialism is the answer, how come Communist countries, who practiced complete socialist economic control, collapsed?"
The same reason capitalism, as it's practiced today, will soon collapse -- corruption and unsustainability can't go on forever. As I've said so many other times before -- and I'm tiring of having to repeat this to you over and over again -- the United States is in the death throes of crony capitalism right now. Socialism is keeping the patient from redlining. Without bailouts, and the infusion of public funds into the biggest socialist program this country supports, we'd all be selling apples on street corners.
The day of reckoning isn't far off. It's quite an exciting Fourth Turning, wouldn't you say? ;-)
"The same reason capitalism, as it's practiced today, will soon collapse -- corruption and unsustainability can't go on forever."
How long ago did Karl Marx say that?
I am proud to cast my vote for Bernie Sanders, (and glad I didn't change my party affiliation for just this reason)!
Anonymous: "How long ago did Karl Marx say that?"
I'm not sure whether he said it, exactly as I did, but I'm confident you'll let me know.
JG:
"The same reason capitalism, as it's practiced today, will soon collapse -- corruption and unsustainability can't go on forever."
Thank you JG for admitting you are a Marxist.
When will your tireless talking point friend and master of deflection and pretzel logic, Dave Dubya, also admit he is a Marxist?
Thank you JG for admitting you are a Marxist.” - Anonymous Chuck
By this, we can thank him for showing us he’s a fascist.
This is the hallmark of fascism, demonization of those who disagree with the radical Right. The Radical Right “Red Card” is their favorite demonization tool. He’s probably totally ignorant of Marx’s actual writings, but they love to paint all dissent from their cult of neo-liberalism as “Marxist”. And yes, they are so ignorant as to not know what neo-liberalism actually is. Chuckie even quoted about the “failure of neo-liberalsim”. Ignorance is strength. Orwell understood the mentality of authoritarian totalitarianism and their need for useful idiots.
They are just proving they are “Good Reich Wing Republikaners”.
For perspective we have a Short history/current events quiz to gauge their extremist ideology.
Republicans or Nazis...?
...Crushed unions and opposed minimum wages for workers.
...Demonized and scapegoated minorities.
...Invaded countries without provocation.
...Opened prison camps where inmates were incarcerated for indefinite time, had no legal counsel, no charges and no conviction.
...Suppressed voter rights.
...Sent mobs to obstruct vote counts.
...Openly scorned democracy.
...Embraced fanatic nationalism and war as the first resort.
...Pushed propaganda portraying their kind as a “master race”, or other claim of
“Exceptionalism”.
...Denounced those who opposed their war of aggression as "siding with the enemy".
...Openly stated a desire for military dominance of the world.
...Expanded a security state and imposed warrantless surveillance on their own citizens.
...Allowed torture by government agencies.
...Promoted “Family values” while claiming God was on their side as they started wars and
embraced torture.
...Employed the “Big Lie” tactic in propaganda efforts. “Marxist”, “WMDs”, “unpatriotic” “They hate us for our freedom” etc.
...Elevated party loyalty over the general welfare of their country and citizens.
...Demanded Loyalty Oaths.
Answers:
BOTH the Republican Party and Nazi Party are known for these acts of destroying democracy and their crimes against truth and humanity.
Peeks
What do you believe brought about Crony Capitalism?
"Without bailouts, and the infusion of public funds into the biggest socialist program this country supports, we'd all be selling apples on street corners."
Honestly by definition, aren't socialist programs funded by public money?
Dave Dubya,
Would you at least admit the Castro brothers are Marxists?
Any idea of how many political rights activists they executed?
No doubt we will hear crickets from Dave and the lunatic left admirers here of the Castro brothers and Che Guervera who murdered anyone who disagreed with their Marxist utopian fantasies. amirite?
Anonymous Chuck,
Thank you for your flattery by imitation. It makes me smile. ;-)
So your narrow authoritarian mind thinks there are fans of the Castros here? As with all goose-stepping fascists, evidence is not required for accusations, amirite?
Any idea of how many Americans have been killed here in the "Land of the free" by far Right extremists since 9-11?
How about Americans killed by "Marxists"? (Hint: None that I know of, but nowhere near the numbers killed by Jihadists and Con-servative far Right thugs.) Two peas in a pod, since you relate so well to demonization. Both are hateful belligerent cults of death, and are crazed enough to think God sides with their blood-stained radical ideology.
It just so happens, thugs on your side "win" the body count.
Now run along and be a "Good Republikaner". It suits you.
Or maybe you'd better fabricate some more false accusations and lies to support your hate.
Either way, as your blood stained "war hero" liar and Decider said, "Bring 'em on". Remember that, as he sent 4 thousand Americans to their deaths for his war of choice for profit and power that spawned ISIS?
Fascist assholes are no better than Jihadists. They both leave thousands of dead as they thump their Bibles or Korans, or "Project for a New American Century" in arrogant self righteousness.
Dave,
You have selective memory, amirite?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.
The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[3]
Upchuck More: "What do you believe brought about Crony Capitalism?"
I believe capitalism's unregulated progression naturally results in crony "free markets". As I already mentioned, the end-game always resorts to extorting public monies to stay aloft.
"Honestly by definition, aren't socialist programs funded by public money?"
The military-industrial-surveillance complex is the largest publicly-funded program in the world. By definition, it's fascism.
Anonymous: "Thank you JG for admitting you are a Marxist."
Prognostication equals Marxism? Really? I don't think so.
Peeks,
That's not what you said. Socialist programs are funded by public money or else it would be by private money funding or in other words, charity. I would ask you, why the governments of the world fund their military-industrial-surveillance complex, even the socialist ones? Is it for the same reason you lock your doors at night? It's a dangerous world we live in. Socialism will not change that reality.
I view it this way, you want a regulated capitalism. I argue we already have one. You want more regulations, I argue that Crony Capitalism is the result of regulating capitalism. What makes you believe that socialism will end Crony Capitalism?
I believe that socialism will have the same failure YOU ascribe to capitalism, IE it will be administered by humans. Check into Venezuela socialism. A completed failure. Look what we know about the "Panama Papers", leaders of socialist countries, England, Iceland, China and sports stars have legally invested in shell company's. Why?
If socialism is the answer, why would the leaders of socialistic countries, their 1%, do this? It is because they are human, and regardless of the government type or style of economics practiced, no regulation will remove that from the equation.
Socialism will not change that. Making charity's give to the Govt instead of to the needy will not change that. Electing one person over another will not change this. Raising taxes on the 51% of us who fund the federal govt will not do that.
"For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". That might offend you, I'm not sorry if it does, really I'm not.
I do know that
Without Capitalism, Socialism would have nothing to redistribute.
Anonymous Chuck,
You have selective memory, amirite?
Thanks again for your flattery by imitation. Unfortunately you cannot imitate reason, if you are so dense that you think citing the Iraq Liberation Act has anything to do with refuting my post.
It wasn't a declaration of war, or an intention to invade. Republican Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said:
"This bill will begin the long-overdue process of ousting Saddam. It will not send in U.S. troops or commit American forces in any way. Rather, it harkens back to the successes of the Reagan doctrine, enlisting the very people who are suffering most under Saddam's yoke to fight the battle against him."
The war that spawned ISIS was promoted by liars, and ordered by one man. Well, let's give his big Dick credit for pushing it with so many lies.
Shall I list some of those lies for war for you?
I'm happy to assist with balancing your deeply slanted selective memory.
Trumpie Chuck notes: "I argue that Crony Capitalism is the result of regulating capitalism."
No he didn't, and won't, argue this. He'll simply declare it to be so. Just like he did regurgitating the Trump "ISIS video" lie.
He will only state his political spin, wrapped in ignorance. That would be far easier than to actually define crony capitalism, which would be a unilateral definition typical to the far Right, and somehow spin regulation as its cause.
Won't happen. Same with supporting his quote on the failure of neoliberalism. Won't happen.
But I'm happy he's here to fulfill his promise, "When you present facts I will dispute them".
That's our boy.
Say Dubya,
Why dont you post on a blog where people give a damn what you say or think?
Why dont you post on a blog where people give a damn what you say or think?
Waaahhh! Someone's getting vewwy angwy. Getting called out for hate, ignorance and lies brings out the crybaby in him.
Why dont you post on a blog where people give a damn what you say or think?
That has to be the most ironic statement in the history of the Rant!
Upchuck More: "That's not what you said."
So there's no misunderstanding, please tell me what I did say -- exactly. I'll be more than happy to reword it for your understanding.
"Socialist programs are funded by public money or else it would be by private money funding or in other words, charity."
How is the the military-industrial-surveillance complex funded? Now, who benefits when there's perpetual, permanent, and unending war as part of U.S. foreign policy?
Would you be in agreement if the proposal was put forth to fund the military purely by charity?
"I would ask you, why the governments of the world fund their military-industrial-surveillance complex, even the socialist ones?"
Good! You answered the first question I asked you (above). Now, answer the second question I asked (above)...and the third.
"Is it for the same reason you lock your doors at night?"
I don't need to lock my doors at night. I guess things are different in Missouri.
"It's a dangerous world we live in."
Only because U.S. foreign policy made it that way. The vast majority of humankind is honest and non-violent.
"Socialism will not change that reality."
The military-industrial-surveillance complex created that non-reality. You know that. Where have you been the last fifty-to-sixty years -- or more?
"I view it this way, you want a regulated capitalism. I argue we already have one."
Obviously, not regulated enough. Remember September 2008? What allowed that travesty to come to a head that month and year? Remember the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933)? I'll let you figure it out.
"You want more regulations, I argue that Crony Capitalism is the result of regulating capitalism."
Argue all you want. Your understanding of crony capitalism is incorrect. In reality, crony capitalism taken to an extreme is defined as corporatism or fascism.
"I believe that socialism will have the same failure YOU ascribe to capitalism, IE it will be administered by humans."
Unless Stephen Hawking's vision of AI taking over comes to pass. (Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't believe in science.)
"Look what we know about the 'Panama Papers', leaders of socialist countries, England, Iceland, China and sports stars have legally invested in shell company's. Why?"
Why? Please enlighten me.
By the way, we really don't know much about the Panama Papers. Only a minuscule amount has been released for public review. From what was released, I'm curious why the focus has been on Putin. I'm also curious about the fact very few Americans have been mentioned.
" 'For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. That might offend you, I'm not sorry if it does, really I'm not."
Why would that offend me? I already know that you're prone to believing everything your masters tell you to believe. Haven't we been over this before? You're a follower, and your faith in miracles runs through a broad range of subjects. Your lack of rational thinking follows suit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ9Si5pkAqg
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."
Upchuck, as I've said before, you're a loyalist to supernatural myths and non-provable beliefs -- in all matters. I prefer, while living in this incarnate form, to follow the natural laws of the physical world. It's the way my maker created me.
But, feel free to follow your false "Paulist" beliefs. Whatever gets you through the day! ;-)
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."
Saul Alinsky
Well, well, Trumpie Chuckie wants to quote Alinsky. Sounds fun.
He had Trumpie Chuck's far Right authoritarian personality pegged:
“The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice."
And poor Trumpie must really be terrified of this one:
“Let the liberal turn to the course of action, the course of all radicals, and the amused look vanishes from the face of society as it snarls, “That’s radical!” Society has good reason to fear the radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of conservatives.”
That sounds as frightening as Trumpie Chuck's American "ISIS propaganda video", amirite?
“The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice."
Wonder if he is certain of that...?
All that bleating and babbling, and Clucky STILL Can't tell us what the GOP has done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years.
Jeez, if they had done ANYTHING you'd think he'd jump up and put me in my place.
Why has he not done it I wonder?
Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with their nonprofit Clinton Foundation, have established at least five shell companies in Delaware, according to tax filings highlighted on Monday.
Those companies include two for the couple's personal finances and three for the foundation, according to the documents.
All five are filed at 1209 North Orange Street in Wilmington. The address is shared with companies like Google, Apple, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Ford, General Electric and more than 280,000 others that use the facility to take advantage of the state's tax laws.
There is nothing illegal about the activity, but the location has come under renewed scrutiny in the wake of last week's finding that a Panamanian law firm helped as many as 140 political leaders around their globe surreptitiously shield their assets using offshore holding corporations. During a campaign stop this week, Clinton said the revelations about the "super-rich" exploiting tax loopholes were "outrageous."
According to the tax filings reported on Monday, the former secretary of state established ZFS Holdings, LLC, at the Wilmington address to process $5.5 million from her book publisher, Simon & Schuster, one week after she left the department 2013. Former president Bill Clinton established WJC, LLC to receive consulting fees in 2008.
The charitable Clinton Foundation established companies at the address in each of 2009, 2010, and 2013. Those are the Accesso Fund, LLC, the Haiti Development Fund, LLC, and the Accesso Worldwide Fund, Inc.
Delaware is commonly used as a tax haven within the United States for several reasons. Chief among them are the ease of establishing legal corporations in the state and the anonymity of incorporation permitted by the state's tax laws. As a result, the 900,000 person state has the most corporations per person of any in the country.
I so hope Bernie wins the Democrat nomination.
Mayor Bill de Blasio insisted Sunday that he knows nothing about the feds’ investigation into his fundraising activities — two days after promising to return shady donations just as news of the probe broke.
“I haven’t heard anything about any investigation,” the mayor said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning. “There haven’t been any questions posed to me or my team.”
He refused to address the investigation further at a public appearance in the afternoon, saying he has “no evidence” the feds were putting his fundraising under a microscope.
Isn't the mayor a good socialist?
Anyone who can gain the respect and vote of a majority of old Vermont farmers who live mostly by common sense and honesty deserves consideration in the NY primary.
For years Bernie has consistently and unwaveringly represented the interests of working people, the elderly, veterans, students, and minorities.
The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” regarding immigration in a new report, claiming Muslims are creating “nations within nations” in the West.
Phillips says followers of Islam hold very different values from the rest of society and many want to lead separate lives.
The former head of the U.K.’s equalities watchdog also advocates the monitoring of ethnic minority populations on housing estates to stop them becoming “ghetto villages.”
He says schools may have to consider a 50 per cent limit on Muslim, or other minority pupils, to encourage social integration.
And he says disturbing survey findings point to a growing chasm between the attitudes of many British Muslims and their compatriots.
Phillips’ intervention comes after he was asked to analyse the findings of a major survey on Muslim attitudes in the U.K., which will form the basis of Channel 4’s documentary, What British Muslims Really Think, which is due to air on Wednesday night.
An ICM poll released to the Times, in Britain, ahead of the broadcast reveals:
• One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house
• 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband
• 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife
• 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal
• 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament
The documentary will portray the U.K.’s Muslims as a “nation within a nation” that has its own geography and values.
Phillips commissioned a report into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism of Islam or Muslims.
“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he now writes in The Times , in response to new data collected.
“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims.
“Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”
In an article for the Daily Mail, Phillips warns of a “life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam.”
“Britain is in many ways a better place than it’s ever been—more prosperous, more diverse, more liberal.
“But for some of our fellow citizens, we’re heading in entirely the wrong direction. So much so that some of them would rather live under a wholly different system.
“Indeed, a significant minority of Britain’s three million Muslims consider us a nation of such low morals that they would rather live more separately from their non-Muslim countrymen, preferably under sharia law.
“This sobering conclusion comes from the most comprehensive survey of British Muslims ever conducted, commissioned by Channel 4.
“Having been asked to examine its results, I believe it holds a grim message for all of us.
“There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam—and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides.”
City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law, Dubya says it doesn't apply to him cause he's an atheist.
Clucky still babbling about the irrelevent, cutting and pasting from sites no one cares about, and he STILL can't tell us ONE THING conservatives have done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years.
You'd think if they HAD done something he'd want to post it so I'd shut up.
Right?
Tom, I'm becoming more positive, with each passing day, that each village truly has its own, and unique, idiot.
Your blog is no exception.
Twenty-five reasons why I also voted for Bernie Sanders during my state's primary.
Supporting Hillary Clinton serves one purpose, and one purpose only, and that's to support the status quo.
Do you support the status quo?
Here's another list of ten more reasons why American needs a person like Bernie Sanders in the White House.
Hillary Clinton favors and is the lead Democratic cheerleader of the prevailing corporatocracy. If you like living under a corporatocracy, and desire to continue living under a corporatocracy, than Hillary Clinton's your gal.
Of course, in the interest of giving a fair and unbiased portrayal of Bernie Sanders, here are five excellent reasons not to vote for him.
Upchuck More, I've answered all of your questions -- thoughtfully and truthfully. But you haven't answered mine. How come? Here, I'll repeat one of them in case you missed it.
"Would you be in agreement if the proposal was put forth to fund the [U.S.] military purely by charity?"
Please respond.
Thank you...
Sorry! An apology from Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims) to humanity
We are sorry
for everything
That we have caused humanity to suffer from.
Sorry for Algebra and the letter X.
Sorry for all the words we throw at you;
Amber, candy, chemistry, cotton, giraffe, hazard,
Jar, jasmine, jumper, lemon, lime, lilac,
Oranges, sofa, scarlet, spinach,
Talisman, tangerine, tariff, traffic, tulips,
Mattress (yes mattress) and the massage you enjoy on it:
We are sorry for all of these.
Sorry that we replaced alcohol with coffee for Enlightenment philosophers.
Speaking of hot drinks,
We are sorry for the cappuccino the Turks brought over.
Sorry for the black Arabian race horses,
For the clock,
Math,
Parachutes.
Abdul in the US is sorry for what so and so did;
He does not know him but he is sorry anyway.
Sorry that we accompanied Columbus on his journey to the States.
And sorry for the Arab man with him
Who was the first to touch the shore and shout ‘Honolulu’
And named the place after him.
Sorry for the architecture in Spain and the Al Hambra palace there.
We apologize for churches in Seville
With their stars of David at the top that we built with our hands.
We say sorry for every number you use in your daily life from the 0 to the trillion.
Even Adnan the Yezidi (mistaken for a Muslim)
Is sorry for the actions of Abu whatever who beheads people in Syria.
Sorry for the mercury chloride that heals wounds,
Please give us some –
Because the guilt of initiating all of the above
Gives us a wound as big as this earth.
Sorry for the guitar that was played by Moriscos in Spain
To ease their pain when they were kicked out of their homes.
Sorry for the hookah as you sip on its lips And gaze into the moon hearing the Arabian Nay.
Sorry for cryptanalysis and the ability to analyze information systems,
To think what is at the heart of the heart of the heart and bring it to the world.
Sorry for painting Grenada white to evade social hierarchy. Sorry for the stories in The Arabian Nights.
Every time we see a star, we remember to be sorry for
Astronomy.
We are sorry that Mo Farah claimed asylum here
And went on to become the British champion of the world.
Sorry for non-representational art,
Pattern and surface decoration.
We are sorry for all the food we brought over:
From tuna to chicken tikka masala,
Hummus,
Falafel,
Apricot,
Doner kebab
Right up to the shawarma roll.
And don’t forget the couscous.
If we forgot to apologize for something, never mind,
We are sorry for it without even knowing it.
Most of all we are sorry for Rumi’s love poems,
And we desperately echo one of them to you:
Oh Beloved, Take me.
Liberate my soul.
Fill me with your love and Release me from the two worlds.
If I set my heart on anything but you
Let fire burn me from inside.
Oh Beloved,
Take away what I want.
Take away what I do.
Take away what I need.
Take away everything
That takes me from you.
Please forgive us.
We are sorry and cannot be sorry enough today.
(Poem by the Syrian Kurdish poet Amir Darwish)
Mozart,
A Republican shill will not answer your question. They must deflect, deny, and distract from the truth.
Here's a good example:
The Rich Live Longer Everywhere. For the Poor, Geography Matters
The Richest American Men Live 15 Years Longer than the Poorest 1 Percent
Guess which states have the lowest life expectancy for the poor?
That’s right, Republican run states. Especially the South. This is to be expected from the “Pro-life-only-before-birth” Party of the Rich.
“Values”, amirite?
Dave Dubya: "Guess which states have the lowest life expectancy for the poor? That’s right, Republican run states. Especially the South."
Must be why they're called the "red states". ;-)
Dave, very exposing graphics.
And yet another reason to cast your vote for Bernie Sanders...
(Tom, are you listening? Tom?...Tom, are you there?)
Even Tom finds his own comment section unreadable...
But if Bernie doesn't win you will vote for Hilary.
But if Cruz doesn't win Chuck will vote for Trump.
Watch him pivot!
IF Sanders doesn't win I WILL vote for Clinton, yes. Why wouldn't I?
The LAST thing this country needs is MORE GOP control. The last GOP administration nearly sank the whole country.
Mozart1220: "IF Sanders doesn't win I WILL vote for Clinton, yes. Why wouldn't I?"
I've already answered your question. Please see time-stamps at 8:06 AM and 8:30 AM (above).
Be brave and take a stand, instead of always voting out of fear -- as the powers-that-be want you to. This may very well be the last election you'll be able to.
Dubya,
Will you vote for Clinton if Bernie doesn't win the nomination?
Chuck,
Will you vote for Trump if Cruz doesn't win the nomination?
To say, if Cruz isn't nominated or Sanders isn't nominated "...will you vote for Trump/Clinton?" is a leading question.
What most folks are doing is voting AGAINST the other party in essence.
Most of us get that. Now can we dispense with the silly stuff...
Oh, wait, no we can't... this is Tom's comment section. Absurdity abounds.
JG, I vote Blue no matter who because ANY of them are better than Cruz or Trump. Cruz is just Trump WITH RELIGION. A Nazi who thinks God is behind him? I shudder at the thought. I saw your posts, but I have nop problem with Clinton because I do not believe Fox Entertainment BS.
ANd I notice that the GOP is STILL defying the constitution by refusing to vote on the SCOTUS candidate, and Clucky STILL can't tell us what conservatives have done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years. (going on 50)
Mozart
How many years in the past 40/50
did the GOP control congress and the Oval Office?
Mozart1220: "JG, I vote [Democratic] no matter who because ANY of them are better than Cruz or Trump."
Thank you for confirming that you'll be voting from a foundation of fear. Also, thank you for verifying that party loyalty is more important to you than what's best for the country.
"I saw your posts, but I have nop problem with Clinton because I do not believe Fox Entertainment BS."
Like I already mentioned, if you like living under a corporatocracy, and desire to continue living under a corporatocracy, than Hillary Clinton's your gal.
Notice how Chuck returns with more questions, but refuses to answer any?
Chuck,
Will you vote for Trump if Cruz doesn't win the nomination?
Since you have no problem asking Dubya if he will vote for Clinton, this should be an easy enough question for you. Or do you only ASK questions around here?
Without Bernie, the other depressing choices are belligerent Authoritarianism, neo-liberal Theocracy, or neo-con corporatism. They force the usual "voting against the greater evil", rather than for a candidate.
The question becomes, "Do we want the impending train wreck to be at 60 mph, 90 mph, or 120 mph?
Anonymous
It would seem you have a short memory problem, as I have posted before I will not respond to a post unless its author uses a hyperlink name.
Dubya is your lastest post a yes or no to the question " will you vote for Clinton if Bernie does not win the democrat nomination ?
Chuck, are you asking me a question while dodging the same type directed to you?
IOKIYAR.
I voted for a Clinton once in '92. Never since, and I am not going to do so again.
We absolutely know you would vote for Trump. You have already supported him by promoting his "American ISIS propaganda video" lie.
Because there is still no retraction, this proves your loyalty, no matter which Republican is nominated.
I am not a Democrat. You are a Republican. YOU have no choice but to follow your leaders, which is comforting to authoritarian personalities. It gives them a sense of belonging, purpose and superiority.
You like that, don't you?
Go ahead, you can occasionally admit the truth, like you did for the failure of neo-liberalism and the Democratic Party representing the top 1%.
So why not admit you would certainly vote for Trump? We suspect you prefer Cruz and his bigoted theocratic hypocrisy. But we also know you revere wealth and love Trump's stances on immigration, Muslims, and his authoritarian militant aggression.
I invite you to comment on my post on Sowell's scorn for the "greedy needy".
Greed: Virtue or vice? Depends on how rich you are. For Sowell, it is virtue for the rich, vice for the poor. A perfect example of far Right double standards.
Feel free to defend that.
It would seem you have a short memory problem, as I have posted before I will not respond to a post unless its author uses a hyperlink name.
Sounds nice, except you don't answer questions from people with hyperlink names either. You ask people who they plan to vote for, but if someone asks you the same question you reply "I can't tell you, you don't have a hyperlink." You seem very arrogant.
Oh, and by the way, nice work above copying & pasting Walter Williams. Is Walter Williams one of your favorite writers? I love the extreme radical cranks you seem to gravitate towards.
Williams believes states have the right to secede from the United States if they wish, as they attempted during the Civil War. Gee, I remember reciting the Pledge of Allegiance when I was in school: "One nation, indivisible..."
Why do you disagree with the Pledge of Allegiance, Comrade Chuck?
Dave Dubya: "The question becomes, 'Do we want the impending train wreck to be at 60 mph, 90 mph, or 120 mph?' "
Excellent analogy, Dave. Or, to put it more bluntly, do you prefer to die slowly and tortuously, or dramatically and more fiercely?
Anonymous: "Sounds nice, except [Upchuck More will not] answer questions from people with hyperlink names either."
You're noticed that, too, eh?
Oh, I almost forgot... Happy tax day to everyone! I hope you all were understanding enough of the tax code to earn yourselves a nice refund. Cheers! ;-)
I think it's rather obvious that Cthulhu Morre will vote for Trump in the general election if he wins the nomination.
So far, I think my favorite Cthulhu Morre comment in this thread is the one where he criticizes progressive Scandinavian countries because "the weather is appalling and the languages are impenetrable." ( ! )
C'mon libtards, how do you beat logic like that? It reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine, where someone asks him about his trip to France and he complains "Did you know the French have a different word for every English word?? It's like those French have a different word for everything!"
Cthulhu Morre has been trolling and gaslighting this Rant so long it's actually HIS blog now. Thanks to Tom Degan for hosting it.
JG, Dubya, Mozart
Interesting, I ask how you will vote, you tell me how I will vote.
I will vote for the most conservative candidate from either the GOP or Democrat party.
As for questions, if you look back you will see when I do answer questions the response is not ( with the exception of JG) very civil.
i just answered the question of who I will vote for,
JG has said it will not be Clinton, I believe Dubya has said the same while Mozart will only vote the Blue ticket.
As for Mozarts question, I have answered it,sadly I'm sure not to his liking. Not surprise
2nd Favorite Comment from Cthulhu This Thread:
"Dennis Hastert isn't a sexual abuser, he's just transgender.
BTW, accused is NOT the same as guilty,
But in other more relevant news...."
It's pure comedy gold.
Imagine if it were revealed that Nancy Pelosi had pain millions of dollars in hush money over a sex scandal? Cthulhu would be on his rooftop crowing like a rooster! We'd literally never hear the end of it on this blog. But because it's Hastert, Cthulhu hand-waves the whole matter away as if it's a case of an innocent, wrongly accused man who just happened to pay a fortune in hush money.
Pure comedy gold.
Anonymous: "Imagine if it were revealed that Nancy Pelosi had pain millions of dollars in hush money over a sex scandal? Cthulhu would be on his rooftop crowing like a rooster!"
Agreed.
"Pure comedy gold."
And he doesn't even intend to be...
>Mozart1220: "JG, I vote [Democratic] no matter who because ANY of them are better than Cruz or Trump."
I think you are doing yourself a disservice. The climate issue is the most pressing issue of our time. Sanders gets this. Clinton pretends to get it - or maybe she does but is paid by the business interests that are bankrolling her not to. She is maybe marginally better than Trump or Cruz - but Hillary helps to take us where we are. You are better off voting for Stein or a Sanders write-in than any of the other options.
The real election is now, the primary. Hillary has the machine, which bestows huge advantage on her - but Bernie's got people. One of the things we should be doing is telling those of the so-called super-delegates who are elected in our regions is that you'd like them to support Bernie - and that this is hugely important to you - so much that your future vote is contingent on this issue. If every Bernie supporter commits to voting against their electable super-delegates, they would have to fall in line.
Having Hillary as a fall back position betrays the Sanders run. Not only that, this betrayal is actually the goal of the DNC. A progressive in the mix to serves to swell the base - only to be discarded. This election cycle is no different, but for the exception that this time it also betrays the first chance we have had toward changing this rotten system, if only a little.
John: "...this time it also betrays the first chance we have had toward changing this rotten system, if only a little."
Thank you, John. All good words.
Chuck,
Good youtube video of Saul Alinsky, who was studied by AmeriKas worst president Barry Obama and the unqualified Hillary Clinton. Hillary's thesis was on Saul Alinksy.
Alinsky is a clever Marxist pretending that he has some sort of aversion to power when in fact the plan is to take power from those who have it and relegate it to people like himself and use it against their political foes? No different than Bernie Sanders or the Bolsheviks in 1917!
The way he rambles incoherently with pretzel logic reminds me of Dave Dubya.
"No different than Bernie Sanders or the Bolsheviks in 1917!" is the projection of “incoherent pretzel logic” that begs us to ignore history.
“AmeriKas worst president Barry Obama” is the projection of “incoherent pretzel logic” that begs us to ignore Obama's predecessor who left us financial collapse, rising unemployment, endless war, ISIS, and the Great Bush Recession.
But the black guy is the “worst” in the opinion of the “not-racist” and willfully ignorant Harry.
Fact-free Harry has it all figured out. LOL!
Now that Harry has played his Radical Right Bubble Cult "red card", what does he have left?
Oh, I know. The "Hastert Rule". Relax boys, IOKIYAR.
Harry = Chuck Morre
Grow some fucking balls anonymouse at 12:26PM.
Are you so naïve to think that there is only 1 non Marxist who posts on this fucked up blog?
What sane person would have a marionette of George Bush? What would Jesus say over such a strange obsession? amirite?
Hey Harry,
Isn't it comical how it is racist to declair Obama is our worse president?
Isn't it comical that no one who posts here denies being a Marxist?
Good to hear from you again, have the special again this morning.
You are right on the mark with your comment about there being more than one non Marxist posting here. Their failure is due I'm sure is due to an inability to deal with reality.
Only a comic would think Bernies economic plans have an ice cubes chance in hell of working as he promises.
Did you note that since I've answered their questions they gave nothing left but the race card?
Have a good rest of the week end Harry, always good to,hear from you
So there are two people that even after 10 years do not know the difference between a Liberal and a Marxist on the same blog? nah, there is only one person that stupid.
declair?
I do declare!
Harry, your very existence offends your baby jesus.
Harry = Chuck Morre = Sore Loser
Anonymous: "Harry = Chuck Morre = Sore Loser"
+
Upchuck More, talking to himself at 7:09 PM
=
schizophrenia
Upchuck More (to his imaginary friend, Harry from Wallingford): "You are right on the mark with your comment about there being more than one non Marxist posting here."
Sure, I'm a Marxist!...
Upchuck More (to his imaginary friend, Harry from Wallingford): "Only a comic would think Bernies economic plans have an ice cubes chance in hell of working as he promises."
I'm not a comic.
Anonymous: "declair?"
Yes, it's a new wacky conservative sweet treat -- on the dessert aisle right before you get to the eclairs.
If Bernie declaired Ralph Nader as VP I'm sure he would get the nomination!
All the superdelegates love Ralph!
Although most progressive readers of Toms blog heckled the Republican candidates (and still heckle) -- look at what you got on your side. Perhaps the most unappealing candidate of all time (or one of) in HRC and an out of touch socialist who has no chance of implementing any of his grand schemes of creating a socialist utopia -- starting with the problem that he has no solid proposals of how to implement.
So -- that's the best the Dems can do? And it is likely HRC will be the nominee -- which is disgusting. Anyhow, she better start studying Tricky Dick's speechifying -- starting with the "I am not a Crook" speech, because just like Dick, she is.
All I would like is to know what Hillary Clinton told the Wall Street Banks that they paid her big bucks to hear.
Was it investment advice? i doubt it because Ms. Clinton is not a certified financial professional or an economist or any such wizard.
Was it a set of promises made to protect their interests if she was elected? I want to know what she promised them. Release those transcripts, Ms. Clinton.
You are treating your Wall Street speeches as classified information while pretending spreading real classified information over the internet was unclassified.
How much are you paying the superdelegates Mrs Clinton to steal Bernies nomination you unqualifed crony capitalist old goat?
Trump/Palin 2016!
I feel sorry for you democraps. Look who you got on your side. We're in much better shape than you. Look how fast we burned through our deep bench. Now Trump is our frontrunner and he will burn down the convention if he doesn't get the nomination. Right behind Trump we have Cruz. He's beloved by his colleagues. We love him so much we're begging Ryan to be president. He refuses but c'mon. We know he's lying. Anyway I'm laughing my ass off at you liberals. What a mess on your side.
"What a mess on your side."
Where would con-servatives be without their patented projection?
Dubya,
You Marxist liberal socialist have a lot of nerve claiming the GOP is guilty of " projection" .
Anonymous 9:25 PM = Jefferson's (slave owner) Guardian
'Nerve" must be the new far Right definition of "accurate observation".
Fascists and their fellow extremists love to ignore facts, play the red card, and redefine terms.
Trump and Palin have openly threatened a "mess" at the GOP convention. Better project that to the Democrats, amirite?
Of course I'm right. It is an observation as simple as discerning day from night.
My blog post of a quiz on "Republicans or Nazis" shows how fascistic that party has become.
Say, Chuck, have you learned about neoliberalism yet? Ignorance is strength. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery.
Marxist liberal socialist.
That's what the KKK and John Birch society called Martin Luther King, Jr.
Cthulhu Morre, you're on the wrong side of history.
We're looking forward to the republican convention. Can't wait to see that heartwarming display of party unity.
Upchuck More: "Anonymous 9:25 PM = Jefferson's (slave owner) Guardian"
No, I'm sorry. As usual, you're wrong again. (I'd guess, though, it's "somebody" with access to ISP addresses. Wouldn't you?) ;-)
Dubya,
You sure seem to have your panties in a wad worrying about the future of the GOP.
Wonder why?
When are JG AND Dubya going to share with us what about Marxist ( if any) that they disagree with?
Chuck I agree:
"Anonymous 9:25 PM = Jefferson's (slave owner) Guardian"
He definitely blew a fuse when I called him out (anonymouse) for his anonymous postings.
The guy does not have a full deck of cards. I know it is politically incorrect to say so, but what can you expect from somebody who believes 9/11 was an inside job? The man needs mental help.
If this man believes 9/11 was an inside job, is it any surprise that he believes man made climate change will soon cause the planet to flood like the days of Noah's Ark? amirite?
JG, please correct any misspellings or dangling phrases etc. you anal retentive dick head.
Ooooh... HarryChuckSoreLoser said a bad word!
We're looking forward to the republican convention. Can't wait!
Harry,
Got any idea how long it will be before any of the Marxists will answer any question I pose to them?
Upchuck More (aka Hairy from Wallingford): "JG, please correct any misspellings or dangling phrases etc. you anal retentive dick head."
Are you angry with me because you can't figure out who Anonymous really is? ;-) That's alright. The feeling will pass. Breath deeply. You'll be okay.
Upchuck More (speaking to his alter ego, Harry from Wallingford): "Harry, Got any idea how long it will be before any of the Marxists will answer any question I pose to them?"
I've bought a dozen of these for you, your family and friends. Where would you like me to ship them?
La Marxista!
Oh, Upchuck More (or is it Harry today)? Because I'm, as you claim, an "anal retentive dickhead", please allow me to correct my spelling from my previous comment time-stamped at 7:18 PM. It should read, "Breathe deeply" -- not "breath deeply". But I suspect you wouldn't have caught that. How could you?
Have you considered taking up yoga? You know, Jesus supposedly practiced this ancient science.
Further use of Rule 5
Further use of the Big Lie.
Post a Comment
<< Home