This is worth a read. Bernie sanders discussing family values.
Sorry about the cheesy title of the article.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/11/bernie-sanders-rips-hearts-republicans-debuting-real-family-values-agenda.html

so Bernie is taking back the family values agenda and running on a platform of Universal Vacation....sweet...sign me up!!!...can't wait to see what's next....employer provided booze and weed!!!

I'm not a all out Bernie fan, but living in VT I know a little bit.
Bernie has a long political history. But after he was elected to the House he did an amazing thing, he did his job. He did constituent service better than either of VT's long standing Senators. Now Vermonts lone vote in the House does not amount to much, but having a guy who would make sure you were called back and your issue attended to is pretty important to a lot of people no matter what side of the aisle they are on. More than one staunch Republican told me "I did not get any results till I called Bernies office and I've been funding the other two for years! That is how he got in the Senate, by constituent service and hard work. I hope he shakes things up because it cant just keep going the way it is.
Maybe the difference is he is not a lawyer, as far as I'm concerned they could pay $5 a nose for them and we would all be a lot better off.

I really like his chances, we're certainly trending in his direction as a nation......I've been thinking lately that Jerry Springer might be the best choice in 2016 to occupy the WH for the next 4-8 years

Every person I know from Vermont can't say enough good things about Bernie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in contrast

what do ya think of nj gov

At a Capitol Hill news conference, Sen. Sanders went after Republicans on family values:

When my Republican colleagues talk about “family values,” what they usually mean is opposition to a woman’s right to choose,

Typical broad brush rhetoric--"right to choose." Among the vast rights to choose that women have, they are restricted more by the massive regulatory state, than by conservative constitutionalism. And that goes for men as well. And for the various and growing number of genders and races. It is amazing that someone whose preferred mode of governance is to regulate as much human behavior as possible would argue on the basis of "right to choose."

opposition to contraception,

Is this a straw man . . . or a lie? Republicans are opposed to contraception? Maybe it's just the syndrome of saying BS so much that he begins to actually believe it.

opposition to gay rights.

Another leftist propaganda bullet point. I don't wish to speak for all "Republicans" here, they being such a "diverse" and often conflicting group of opposing members. But "Republicans" of a constitutional stripe are opposed to special rights for special groups which contradict or deny rights to everyone else. And the constitutionalists understand that the vast residuum of rights belong to the people and are unalienable, which the government cannot abridge, and the rights of the government to be limited by the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. It is typical that a progressive socialist, whose preferred notion of a right is that which the government allows, will talk about special group rights. And it is typical that he would divide the people into opposing groups in order to demagogue for or against a group versus another to bit by bit conquer all.

Let me today give a somewhat different perspective on family values – on real family values.

Before we get into Bernie's "perspective," it might be proper to point out a traditional "perspective" of what those values are and for what purpose. I would suspect most "Republicans" would agree with such a traditional "perspective."

For the family to succeed as a cohesive unit it must have common moral and ethical values that breed cooperation and support within the immediate and the extended family. The family values become what Eben might call "the little book" on how, in the immediate sense, to successfully live as a family, and in the ongoing, or future sense, as a training ground for children in order to properly behave and strive as adults outside the family, and how to create families of their own. The family becomes a microcosm of social and individual behavior which enables its members, especially the children, to function in the macrocosm of society at large.

Among those values which make for successful families and translate into success into the world at large would be honesty, loyalty, work ethic, love, morality, and discipline. All of which transcend the limits of family and create the "good" society--or the "fabric" of society.

And now for Bernie's "perspective":

When a mother has a baby and is unable to spend time with that child during the first weeks and months of that baby’s life, and is forced back to work because of a lack of money, that is not a family value. What were the family values that led to such a condition? That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a wife is diagnosed with cancer and a husband cannot get time off of work to take care of her, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. Are there any family values which can be applied to this situation to make it all "work"? When a mother is forced to send her sick child to school because she cannot afford to stay home with her that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. Are there any family values which can be applied to this situation that can make it better? When a husband, wife, and kids, during the course of an entire year, are unable to spend any time together on vacation – that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for.

Notice how he never mentions a single family value, or what a family "is supposed to stand for"? Nor which family values are being attacked.

Sen. Sanders’ agenda is centered around two pieces of legislation, “Senator Sanders’ Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act would provide 10 days of paid vacation for employees who have worked for an employer for at least one year. This legislation would make sure workers have access to minimum vacation benefits that most companies already offer to their white-collar, high-salary workers. So Bernie's perspective on family values goes beyond family, even to all "employees." I'm getting the picture of family, to a progressive socialist, being everybody in the "village." We're all one big family, which is probably why it is futile, or self-defeating for a progressive socialist to name what family values are since he would see all values being family values since we are all in the same family--the family regulated and nourished by the State. The Act would apply to employers with at least 15 employees….Workers in the United States should have at least 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical leave. The FAMILY Act introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand does just that. This bill, which Sen.Sanders is co-sponsoring, allows mothers and fathers to receive 12 weeks of paid family leave to care for a baby. It also allows workers to take the same amount of paid time off if they are diagnosed with cancer or have other serious medical conditions or to take care of family members who are seriously ill.”

And there it is. Family values, whatever they are, are of no consequence on their own. They must be made possible by government.

For decades, Republicans have been calling themselves the party of family values while carrying out an ideological agenda that weakens and undermines the economic security of the nation’s families. Republicans oppose any steps that would strengthen families. Studies have found that the more money a couple makes, the less likely they are to divorce. Economic stability increases family stability.

When a worker has to place economic survival ahead of their family, the family suffers. Republicans have gotten away with disguising their family killing policies as values for too long.

Conservatives hijacked the term family values, but Bernie Sanders is taking it back.

Again, no mention of specific, or even general, family values. Are we to assume that paid medical leaves and vacations are family values? Are we to assume that legislative time and money transfers are family values? Does the article actually talk about family values? Or does it talk about the value of government "assistance" to families? Does it specify how the growing "assistance" to everybody has strengthened the family? Does it dismiss the notion that families become stronger when they do for themselves? That they overcome adversity with the actual values which the article or Sanders never mention, and that by applying those values they become stronger? And does it occur to the only-by-government statists that its nannyism actually makes families weaker and more dependent? As it does to people in general. Perhaps we should believe in the ultimate model of government assistance making families stronger would be putting all families on government dole. Year round vacation with medical assistance and all the weeks necessary for taking care of the baby. Don't we already have such a program, aid to dependent children or some such beneficent sounding name? And it does create a sustainable model for repeating the family unit. And doesn't Obamacare kick in it's two cents worth?


I find it repugnant, and ignorant, when unsubstantiated verbal bombs are thrown such as for decades Republicans have been "carrying out an ideological agenda that weakens and undermines the economic security of the nation’s families." Or "Republicans have gotten away with disguising their family killing policies as values for too long." Really? Republican policies have been killing families?

I would assume, perhaps I'm wrong, that if a married couple didn't want a divorce, a Republican policy wouldn't force them to get one.

And, in that proverbial socialist, class-struggle rhetoric, we are not really self-actuating individuals, but "workers" as in "When a worker has to place economic survival ahead of their family, the family suffers." I also get a kick out of using the plural "their" to refer to the "worker" in order to avoid the politically incorrect use of the male "his." So, naturally, it is up to government to provide for the worker's economic survival so "they" don't have to put it ahead of "their" family. Wow! No actual family values which can pull it together through thick and thin? Wow! Well, there it is again. People simply cannot make a go of it on their own. Either government policy will "kill" their family, or it will save it.

Yes, the State will make your life whole. It will make your marriage strong. It will save you. Damn if that doesn't sound like religion.

Detbuch nailed it. All you guys who like Sanders, it might interest you to know that his characterization of Republicans, other than generally being opposed to abortion, is a lie. A b ig fat lie, designed to make people think hat we are vastly different than what we actually are. As I have said, and I am correct, Sanders only lies about what I believe, because he knows he cannot win a debate about I actually do believe. So he says I hate women, because if he can convince simpletons of that, and he can, it's easier than refuting what I'm actually saying.

Classic liberal dishonest personal attacks. Almost never responding to what I'm actually sayong. Where in the conservative platform does it say we want to let employers force women to go back to work the day after giving birth? Is anyone saying that? No. But Bernie Sanders claims we say that, and no one calls him on it. That's what liberalism has descended to.

Republicans are killing families? The party that believes in the sanctity and necessity of the nuclear family, they're the ones killing families? Unbelievable...

You are vastly different. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are vastly different. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll ask you, since you are a fan of his. What, exactly, are Republicans doing to kill families? I'm all ears.

Nebe, can you honestly tell me that Republicans don't favor good old fashioned family values, more than Democrats? Abortion on demand and legal marijuana, free birth control pills, saying that casual sex is OK, these are things that help keep families together? Because I'm not lying when I say that Democrats tend to endorse those things.

If those things help families, I'd love to hear how.

Every person I know from Vermont can't say enough good things about Bernie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

U pick a state that is tied with Connecticut for the most liberal states in America...what would UUUUU expect from such a communist.....surprised his arm was not raised in the sieg heil position while speaking....:)

I'll ask you, since you are a fan of his. What, exactly, are Republicans doing to kill families? I'm all ears.

Nebe, can you honestly tell me that Republicans don't favor good old fashioned family values, more than Democrats? Abortion on demand and legal marijuana, free birth control pills, saying that casual sex is OK, these are things that help keep families together? Because I'm not lying when I say that Democrats tend to endorse those things.

If those things help families, I'd love to hear how.

Read the link I posted again. All your questions are answered in it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Read the link I posted again. All your questions are answered in it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, what's in there is Bernie Sanders' dishonest, demonstrably false, self serving horsesh*t. I asked you what you thought, you couldn't answer except to refer me to a pathologically dishonest socialist.

Bernie Sanders can say that conservatives only care about the rich. He can say it a zillion times, that doesn't make it true. But saying it is a whole lot easier than debating what conservatives are actually saying.

Nebe, from Sanders website...

"Republicans oppose any steps that would strengthen families."

Really. There's not one thing that strengthens families, that Republicans support? Nebe, do you believe that? Do you genuinely believe that?

Nebe,
Actually most Vermonters will tell you that Bernie has done a great job of constituent support and that is what got him into the Senate. Now agreeing with him politically is another story.
For years I have called Bernie "The Limbaugh of the Left", since he comes up with things that as simplistic ideas seem to make sense, but when you look in depth at them they are pretty leaky theories.
He does think and I agree that the middle class is disappearing, we just don't agree on why.
I think it is because we depend on government to do things for society and add layers of middle and upper management to helping your neighbors.
Bernie thinks helping your neighbor is the job of government.

For the family to succeed as a cohesive unit it must have common moral and ethical values that breed cooperation and support within the immediate and the extended family. The family values become what Eben might call "the little book" on how, in the immediate sense, to successfully live as a family, and in the ongoing, or future sense, as a training ground for children in order to properly behave and strive as adults outside the family, and how to create families of their own. The family becomes a microcosm of social and individual behavior which enables its members, especially the children, to function in the macrocosm of society at large.

Among those values which make for successful families and translate into success into the world at large would be honesty, loyalty, work ethic, love, morality, and discipline. All of which transcend the limits of family and create the "good" society--or the "fabric" of society



There are other traditional or conservative family "values" that I didn't mention, including two important ones. One I omitted intentionally, the other I simply forgot. I purposely did not list religious faith. Not that it's not important, but that it is no longer a persuasive "value" in the broader context of our more diverse and increasingly secular society. For a great number, of course, it still is. But, for that number, I would just be preaching to the choir. To persuade those, including Republicans or conservatives, who don't adhere to religion, particular or general, religious faith would be a traditional value of little consequence. Personally, however, though I am not religious in an organized sense, I think there is tremendous value in recognizing a fundamental order of things, of life, of existence, which should not be superseded by concocted temporal law. That's why I like the Founders use of "Creator" as a generic endower of unalienable rights. The creator, for me, doesn't have to be anthropomorphic. Without a belief in a somehow created foundational order, of some type, however vague or unknowable, we are left only with meaningless accident and the attempt to organize it by various human concoctions of government . . . rule of men (rule of people or "them" to be politically correct) over men (people, them)--but left with no such thing as an unalienable right--only rights prescribed by some people and imposed on other people. And from that, given human nature as we know it, tyranny or despotism will follow, hard or soft versions, but versions none the less.

The "value" I forgot is responsibility. Traditional family values require that family members be responsible, in general or for specific duties and behaviors. It is that particular value which might give Bernie a problem in discussing "real family values" as he put it. Being instilled with traditional family values, which among other things include honesty, loyalty, work ethic, love, morality, discipline, and personal responsibility, would make if far more difficult to be a Bernie type victim, then if people are taught by government, by demagoguery, by Marxist, socialist, progressive institutes of learning that it is their birthright (actually only a right as prescribed by government) to have and to be given things provided by others, to be entitled to assistance in living . . . taught to be helpless without direction and assistance by the state.

And isn't it that progressive socialist mentality that Bernie seems to be implying to be "real family values"? I say imply, because he doesn't actually cite any values. Just what aren't family values. And, of course, they aren't because they are not values at all.

He says "When a mother has a baby and is unable to spend time with that child during the first weeks and months of that baby’s life, and is forced back to work because of a lack of money, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a wife is diagnosed with cancer and a husband cannot get time off of work to take care of her, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a mother is forced to send her sick child to school because she cannot afford to stay home with her that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a husband, wife, and kids, during the course of an entire year, are unable to spend any time together on vacation – that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for."

Does anyone find an iota of traditional family values in that statement? What are the "real family values" he speaks of in that statement? Is he hinting that a mother spending every hour of the first weeks and months with her newborn child is a family value? Is he saying that she is forced to work 24/7 during those weeks and months? Not only are those notions verbal caca, but he might have a problem with the women's rights votes he's trying to garner.

If a child is able to go to school, how sick is the child? Minor sickness doesn't usually require lengthy periods to recover from, and in most cases, those with "real family values" can turn to others in the immediate or extended family to help baby sit for a few days. And major illness would better be attended to in hospital.

If there are some years when a family cannot spend time together on vacation, that is an attack on everything a family is supposed to stand for? Newsflash . . . the family is spending the entire year together vacation or no. Why is it a family value that a family must spend a vacation together every year? Is this in the little book of family values?

It seems to me, that "real family values" have worth in that they instill the ability to overcome temporary setbacks. But if the setbacks are made whole, not by the family, but by the government, where is the family value in that? Could someone put a name to that value? Is government assistance a family value?

Those who have a religious faith and are in church or other likewise community, and, or, who abide by traditional family values seem to do better not only at coping with Bernie's hypotheticals, but seem to be less prone to them.

So, which family values make the family stronger and support "everything that a family is supposed to stand for." Traditional values, or government assistance? If the answer is government assistance, then what is a family supposed to stand for?

And which values make the family weaker? Do traditional family values make families weaker? If government assistance is "the real family value" what is the need for traditional values? If government assistance is the real value, why is marriage or family needed?

And isn't it that progressive socialist mentality that Bernie seems to be implying to be "real family values"? I say imply, because he doesn't actually cite any values. Just what aren't family values. And, of course, they aren't because they are not values at all.



values, rights, entitlements, aren't they just created out of thin air now a days to fuel political ambition? Varying definitions of truth, justice, liberty to suit one's needs rather that to form a common understanding and a stable environment in which to thrive. Communities are as torn and divided as the family unit as values are degraded and destroyed, transformed....this is an image on an 18th century Liverpoool jug that I'm restoring, made for the American market shortly after the Revolutionary War. Symbolic of what the framers intended and understood.....the Great Seal of the United States sits atop a foundation where Lady Liberty resides above Justice and Truth, below is a vignette with fields being plowed(the land of plenty) and a warning above which reads (united we stand + divided we fall)....this is not complicated...we cannot have individual liberty without a basic understanding and agreement on both justice and truth......without those, liberty fails, America falls.......it's the "responsibility" that is required with exercising our inalienable rights that allows us to live side by side with others enjoying without having them taken away, it's when neighbors claim special rights(positive liberties) for themselves, create their own "truths" through shifting sand thinking and engage in arbitrary justice, and acknowledge no responsibility as we can see in our history , we end up in struggle rather than peace....modern, newly created rights, privileged and entitlements, arbitrary justice and shaded truth don't appear to require any responsibilities beyond supporting the correct cause..........

that's pretty much where we're at...

some will look at Bernie's family values statement and say, "he's lying and he never mentions a 'family value' "....and will be attacked as a hater for pointing this out

some will look at the same statement and say, "even if he's lying he's got a great point"....and will be applauded for being open-minded

You guys are still missing the point behind what Bernie is saying. Corperatations have made out like bandits under guidance from the GOP, who panders to their voters by promoting classic conservative family values, yet at the same time the GOP doesn't put an ounce of value on the financial well being of the American family unless they are worth over 10 million dollars. It's all a smoke screen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are still missing the point behind what Bernie is saying. Corperatations have made out like bandits under guidance from the GOP, who panders to their voters by promoting classic conservative family values, yet at the same time the GOP doesn't put an ounce of value on the financial well being of the American family unless they are worth over 10 million dollars. It's all a smoke screen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just re-read it...and it actually doesn't say any of that....it does state..

When my Republican colleagues talk about “family values,” what they usually mean is opposition to a woman’s right to choose, opposition to contraception, opposition to gay rights. Let me today give a somewhat different perspective on family values – on real family values. as Detbuch pointed out...after reading the article you're still left wondering what "real family values" are according to Bernie

Republicans have been calling themselves the party of family values while carrying out an ideological agenda that weakens and undermines the economic security of the nation’s families. like welfare?

Republicans oppose any steps that would strengthen families.huh?

Conservatives hijacked the term family values (thought the word "hijacked" was banned from political discourse because of the whole terrorist thingy")

there's also the various "attacks" on the family mentioned from things like cancer, babies, the common flu and work commitments(some people refer to this as "life") that are just completely unfair.....

You guys are still missing the point behind what Bernie is saying. Corperatations have made out like bandits under guidance from the GOP, who panders to their voters by promoting classic conservative family values, yet at the same time the GOP doesn't put an ounce of value on the financial well being of the American family unless they are worth over 10 million dollars. It's all a smoke screen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


"the GOP doesn't put an ounce of value on the financial well being of the American family unless they are worth over 10 million dollars"

There you have it. A self-serving bullsh*t liberal myth that is easily disproven.

Here in CT, all the liberals do is tax and spend. Much of the spending goe sto liberal pet projects that in no way benefit the rapidly shrinking middle class, but we will still get stuck with the bill

You also seem to believe that anything that helps business necessarily hurts families. That's not true, what's good for a business can also be good for a family, because most families derive their oay from a business of buy things from a business. Businesses are not all evil and sinister.

Republicans oppose any steps that would strengthen families.huh?

.....

Bingo. Another broad, baseless claim, he offered no support, he didn't refute any of the pro-family policies that Republicans support.

Nebe, there are a ton of unanswered questions in that piece. No one party has a monopoly on good or evil, and anyone who says otherwise, is a sinmpleton and a hack who is trying to take you for a sucker.

You also seem to believe that anything that helps business necessarily hurts families. That's not true, what's good for a business can also be good for a family, because most families derive their oay from a business of buy things from a business. Businesses are not all evil and sinister.[/QUOTE]

not evil at all.....my business employed ten to twelve people....thru out the years they were able to put food on the table...buy vechicles...go on vacations and some had enough since to invest...and they all helped me make money(profit)....:)

Why has the middle class shrunk so much ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why has the middle class shrunk so much ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great question. Presumably, Bernie Sanders would say it's because of the GOP. Presumably, you would accept that without any evidence. The problem is, here in CT, for the last 50 years, the legislature and executive branches have been dominated by Democrats...very liberal Democrats. What the Dmeocrats have done here in CT, is make it as attarctive a place as possible for those who want to be on welfare, and they've made it as expensive and difficult as possible for those that want to work. Inevitably, you lose workers (middle class) and gain welfare recipients, and eventually, you go broke.

I have lived in CT my whole life, and boy would I love to hear how conservative principles are responsible for ANYTHING in this Marxist utopia. Even our rare Republican governors, were usually liberals. Nowhere in this political landscape, is there any hint of a conservative footprint. It's as blue as it gets. And it has been an abject failure.

The middle class has shrunk because as taxes and the cost of living have escalated, the middle class has found they can get a much better deal in places like NC and TN. And no decrease in quality o flife to accompany the lower cost of living.

Why has the middle class shrunk so much ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it has to shrink under Socialism......, you expect the middle class to expand with bloated government and unprecedented and unsustainable government debt, unprecedented government dependence, flooding illegal immigration?...how will that happen? we're not trying to expand the middle class.... we're working very hard to permanently entrench a very large dependent class to maintain a huge bureaucracy....the middle class is not required to any great degree in a static socialist state, just a broad, powerless working class, dependent on the machinations of a corrupt and powerful government to such a degree that they must continue to support through labor or patronage in order to survive and maintain the state, it's handouts and those that run it....Bernie could tell you that....it's called Utopia.....you see the successful models everywhere...you aren't voting for candidates any longer, you are voting whether or not to maintain and to what degree to enlarge the state(government)....the smaller the middle class and the larger the dependent class........ the more likely the state will be maintained or enlarged....the greatest single threat to a socialist state is a thriving middle class

This is all I have to say

https://www.google.com/#q=seniors+are+middle+class

....the greatest single threat to a socialist state is a thriving middle class

Darn right.

There is a deep question that I often ponder, essentially it's this...do those who control the Democratic party at the national level, intentionally support policies that cripple those at the bottom? No one can deny that these liberal welfare programs, and liberal programs that give financial incentives for teenage girls to have kids and stay single, fail. These programs are killing the poor. Yet liberals keep supporting the same programs. So the question again is, is that intentional? Is it by design? Or do they genuinely believe they are helping these people the best way possible, despite tons of empirical evidence?

Guy is a borderline Communist. He is an extreme socialist. There is nothing to like or see about communists. Communists like power and to keep it then must control everything this is what & why big government does what it does. It slashes the independent, the rights of the individual at the alter of the machine.

The communist socialists that stared the Russian Revolution were idealed people like this dope too. Wonder how many of them fell out of favor before making small rocks out of big rocks in Siberia.

I have been in Eastern Europe before the wall fell. The East Germans were better Communists than the Russians. Place was still farked.

Elect this guys or people like him at our peril.

I FU()*#$NG hate communists.

Well. You can always elect Donald Trump! LMAO!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well. You can always elect Donald Trump! LMAO!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why replace one loser with another loser? Obama was never up to the task of President. I don't think Trump would be either. Sanders could possibly be worse than Obama.

We as a nation need to do better from and with both parties

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

REALLY......explain the 19 TRILLION of debt with in the last 8 years with democrats in charge.....:)

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK. Your wrong. First, you mix debt and deficit. The National Debt and the Federal deficit are two different things. In terms of the debt, under Obama the amount has risen vastly more than under Bush or any other President.

As for deficit:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

Corporate welfare and people welfare have the same effect. They give a boost to particular corporations or people at the expense of other businesses or people. On the other hand, they create a weakness in all of them. Their "successes" depend on government rather than on themselves. And as a system of governance, it generally weakens the "fiber" of a society and strengthens the power of government over the people. A basic safety net might be compassionate and even helpful, but creeping beyond that and growing into a way of life, it destroys the core of a free society.

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You are wildly incorrect on the debt/deficit.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

Over Bill's 8 years, he & congress reduced spending down to near neutral with a small surplus at the end - but not for his term.

If you want to drill down further you will see that the R congress and D white house of Clinton worked TOGETHER to balance the budget. WJC would not have done it on his own. They still added to the national debt

Bush spent more than he took in - with the help of his Dem Congress and still added to the national debt

Obama has spent more than he brought in and still added to the debt. He has also spent more in 6 years than GW did in 8, with higher war costs.

REGARDLESS of who spent more (Obama) we need to demand our politicians in both parties do better.

The dem politicans like you to believe they are not influenced by corporations but look who their biggest donors are too.

It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Corporations need to pull their weight. Heads of corporations need to step back a little. Regardless welfare and entitlement programs for individuals are a direct cost with zero return. People whom are able bodied and mentally capable should be required to provide some level of service for their income. Welfare has become generational, it was never intended to provide a lifestyle it was intended to provide supplemental support in a time of crisis. It is "transitional assistance"

Retirees receiving SS and medical benefits after working for their entire lives should not be threatened with "I can't guaranty we can fund SS if we don't pass an emergency spending bill" (paraphrased)

Corporate welfare maintains employment for individuals and provides tax revenue via said employment. That being said any corporation taking a hand out or tax break should have to qualify with regards to Executive earnings relative to employee earnings.

Of course that will never happen because all politicians are on the take and corporations write the legislation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK. Your wrong. First, you mix debt and deficit. The National Debt and the Federal deficit are two different things. In terms of the debt, under Obama the amount has risen vastly more than under Bush or any other President.

As for deficit:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

Corporate welfare and people welfare have the same effect. They give a boost to particular corporations or people at the expense of other businesses or people. On the other hand, they create a weakness in all of them. Their "successes" depend on government rather than on themselves. And as a system of governance, it generally weakens the "fiber" of a society and strengthens the power of government over the people. A basic safety net might be compassionate and even helpful, but creeping beyond that and growing into a way of life, it destroys the core of a free society.

John R is correct. It cracks me up when liberals cite Bill Clinton's great economic record, as evidence that liberal economics works. Because what did Bill Clinton do? He cut taxes, slashed spending, balanced the budget, and kicked millions of deadbeats off of welfare (guess what, they all went out and got jobs). Clinton's economic policies were right out of the Tea Party manifesto, Nebe. And sure as hell, they worked.

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You really need to get some facts before you form these opinions.

Deficit/surplus is just for one year, debt is the running total.

True that Obama's deficits are getting smaller, but he still runs deficits, and thus he is adding to our debt. He has added more to the debt, than any president in our history (maybe he has added more than all previous presidents combined? some say that is true, not sure).

Nebe, Bush added to the debt, but he had a good reason, he had to build a massive anti-terror infastructure from scratch. Maybe you remember 9/11. We can, and should debate the wars. Even without the war in Iraq, we were going to add to our debt to fight back against terror. Obama has spent all this money, and all we have to show is the slowest recovery, ever, from a recession.

REGARDLESS of who spent more (Obama) we need to demand our politicians in both parties do better.


How?

Vote them out? Just another nitwit waiting in the wings.

Correspond/Contact your representative? They just yes you to death and ignore it....business as usual.

Switch Parties? Each one is chock full of idiots that are effing useless.

so how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know.

Term limits for congress and senate. Any congressman or senator who has direct family between 18 and 35 must go to war if he voted for it. Pension rate determined by approval rate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How?

Vote them out? Just another nitwit waiting in the wings.

Correspond/Contact your representative? They just yes you to death and ignore it....business as usual.

Switch Parties? Each one is chock full of idiots that are effing useless.

so how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know.

Disconnect from the party. No longer be a Democrat or a Republican.

Maybe find and back some common sense people in local politics.

Look where the Ted Kennedys and John Boehnors have gotten us.

Term limits is a start. Having a media that does not schill for mostly one side but begins to actively investigates stuff with journalistic integrity.

You work in a bureaucracy - you see how bad it is. We are going to let the professional leeches continue to do what they do and grow more bureaucracy? What we are doing as a country is unsustainable.

CAREER POLITICIANS. PROFESSIONAL CAREER POLITICIANS. Suckling at the public teat. So we are going to elect Bernie Sanders, a career politician, and champion public teat sucker? We are so doomed. Linday Graham? We are farked.

ELIMINATE all Corporate, Union, PAC, and political funding in excess of $100. Add a tiny tax percentage and raise some moneys to finance campaigns at a local/state/federal level. EVERY penny of every donor includes full name and a purple thumbprint (or middle finger).

Require College Professors to have real jobs for 3 out of every ten years ('cept real scientists - RIROCK - not Poli-scientists). Have them need to make a PAYROLL.

I do not think this is the Republic our forefathers (is that phrase a microagression safe room trigger?) had in mind.

Divided we have failed. We are so doomed.

Welcome to interesting times.

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is the countries savoir:

No. No. No.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should not only check the date when information you cite was generated, but you should read it more carefully. This chart was 2011. Which would not make it a true comparison to the Presidents who preceded Obama as Snopes says: "The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama). Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances) the increase reported for Barack Obama will be considerably higher by the time he leaves office (whether that be in 2013 or 2017)."

As Snopes predicted, the increase in actual dollars reported for Barack Obama is already CONSIDERABLEY higher than all the other Presidents.

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Sorry Charlie - here is the US Treasury DOT GOV site, not Snopes.

By Dollahs. Remember than an incoming president has an extended period of time of their first year working with the budget from the previous administration. So in Obama's first 6 years he has accumulated more debt than Bush did in 8 AND Bush has 750 million in TARP against his timeslot that does not even go against Obama.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

By Percent of GDP

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-much-debt-did-each-president-leave-for-the-country/article/2560220

How?

Vote them out? Just another nitwit waiting in the wings.

Correspond/Contact your representative? They just yes you to death and ignore it....business as usual.

Switch Parties? Each one is chock full of idiots that are effing useless.

so how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know.

What do you do with a house whose foundation has been destroyed?

Probably tear it down completely and draw up plans for a new house.

What if the foundation is still intact, but has some cracks and reparable faults?

Restore it.

Is our house now so irreparably divided by irreconcilable cracks and corroded by faults beyond repair?

Quite possibly so.

We are certainly no longer living in it. We live next to it in a tent which bends and blows with the wind of whim, is populated by would be family who are more strangers than siblings, and governed by ideological vagabonds who speak different truths to waiting pliable ears . . . all waiting for the house to be fixed . . . but each desiring different floor plans.

The disappointing irony is that the original floor plan was designed to accommodate a family of unique individuals who could in mutual harmony exercise their different desires.

Of course, we are all too human, too illustrative of the Cain and Abel story, fall too short of the glory of the founding creation. We squabble, cheat, coerce our way at the expense of those we should cherish as family in our house of freedom built like no other.

Overgrown egos have decided, for all of us, to knock down walls and stairways, and more, over time so that the house of many mansions will be hollowed out into one big hall in which their is no room to walk in your own private way, but whose purpose is for all to march in common in whatever direction we are told to satisfy our daily needs.

There is the illusion that we have become more diverse. Even gender is atomized from two into growing numbers dependent not on some natural design, but according to self identification. What, however, on the surface appear to be differences, are merely self-inflicted variations on the same theme of "equality." We must fit into the big wall-less room without complaint of claustrophobia.

You ask "so how do we demand it of them?" The "wall of separation" between you and the State has been knocked down. The overgrown egos who preached a "wall of separation between church and state" were lying. The wall, as it was, already existed in the original foundation: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." That "wall" (a word not mentioned in the Constitution) assured that the state could neither force upon the people the religion of its choice, nor could it deny, therefor, their freedom to exercise the religion of their choice. But the "wall" the overgrown egos erroneously "interpreted" (on purpose) into the design of their choice was to abridge the exercise of religion from interfering with the will and dictate of government. The lie, of course, is rather than being a wall, there is, in their design, none. The original "wall" denied the state unwanted entrance into the individual exercise of religion. But the State is now attempting to enter at its own will. And, as well, the walls of separation between the people and the state (comprised of all the walls in the originally designed house which accommodated all of its diverse inhabitants with unalienable rights) are to be eliminated.

The floor plan with which the overgrown egos are replacing the original design, has only one room. The room they created, which they regulate, and the rules which you will follow. You no longer will have the unalienable authority to demand anything of them. They will give you whatever freedoms that they deem will fit into their grand hall of equality.

If you don't like the new house being constructed for you to live in, you will have to join with enough people who oppose it and wish to restore the house in which they have walls against government coercion. That number has dwindled, and at an even faster rate under the current regime. That has to be accomplished from the ground up. The entrenched political top will not give up its power as long as it can convince 50+% of voters (and are not allowed to garner fake votes) that those who oppose them are "extremists" or fringe freaks or just plain stupid. The ruling class must legislate or approve notions such as term limits, or restricting their prerogative to be bribed, or trade campaign promises for donations, or to "act responsibly." All such notions which must filter through them are obviously non-starters for them, or are to be paid lip service, passed, and given loopholes by which they can be disregarded.

If the politicians are not legally bound, procedurally restricted, they will do as they wish. That they have transformed, by devious "interpretations," the law that bound them, and convinced us that it's too late to restore that law, and even that it was an impediment to their doing wonderful things for us, and have, as well, transformed our public and higher institutions of learning into disseminators of their ideology, makes it a long tough haul.

Either your in for the effort . . . or you will continually wonder "how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know."

NEBE:

I thought U would get a chuckle.....if by some fluke that he did get in office he forgets it all has to go thru congress.....then again President Trump could use excutive order such as the president UUU love today.....lol....:)

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not helping your argument by stating Obama increased the national 34% in three years

As far as Trump goes? The guy knows how to turn a dollar. Not sure how that would translate in U.S. Economy ways. I always take issue with candidates and politicians who have little to no experience outside of higher education and public sector. You can not know what it takes to succeed in private business working in these two genres your customers are forced into dealing with you. If you need money you find a way to have it appropriated. Just does not translate to earning or failing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotflmao: I didn't think anyone placed any stock in snopes any longer since they've been proven wrong on so many issues so many times. :claps:

:rotflmao: I didn't think anyone placed any stock in snopes any longer since they've been proven wrong on so many issues so many times. :claps:
Wow, you should have no problem listing a great number of them then.

Wow, you should have no problem listing a great number of them then.

Gotta agree with Spence on this one. Snopes is still a fairly valid BS ometer to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

CAREER POLITICIANS. PROFESSIONAL CAREER POLITICIANS. Suckling at the public teat. So we are going to elect Bernie Sanders, a career politician, and champion public teat sucker? We are so doomed. Linday Graham? We are farked.

ELIMINATE all Corporate, Union, PAC, and political funding in excess of $100. Add a tiny tax percentage and raise some moneys to finance campaigns at a local/state/federal level. EVERY penny of every donor includes full name and a purple thumbprint (or middle finger).

Require College Professors to have real jobs for 3 out of every ten years Have them need to make a PAYROLL.

I do not think this is the Republic our forefathers (is that phrase a microagression safe room trigger?) had in mind.

Divided we have failed. We are so doomed.



That would make a great start. Should be no problem getting that
passed by Congress and elite higher education. :hihi: "pfft"

the role of president ages you fast
not sure if mr sanders could manage it :doh:

http://youtu.be/rtBVuye4fZQ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sanders can speak all he wants. Regardless of how you may agree or disagree with people in this forum. Generally those that have valid input are informed enough to have an opinion.

Sanders Trump Hillary whoever, has to win the media. I am a firm believer that scare tactics fear mothering and shiny flashy things win in this country. Honestly look at how Our current Potus got elected. The guy had a record that qualified him for little. He came off well spoken, Oprah put him on. Etc. etc. Sanders may be a great candidate unless he wins the "Hollywood" contest he will never get a nomination
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

RE : the Hollywood contest .....yeah SAME thing applied to Ronnie Reagan

slam dunk

http://youtu.be/rtBVuye4fZQ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


180 seconds? It only took me 18 seconds to hear the same 50 yr old Lib
BS, "A pot in every kitchen and a chicken in every pot ", funded by a cut in
military spending. Get real.

RE : the Hollywood contest .....yeah SAME thing applied to Ronnie Reagan

slam dunk

No doubt,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Apparently they really want to see a pot smoking socialist in the White House. We could get a third Obama term after all."

of course anyone givin ole Hillary a rough time
is welcome round my campfire

of course anyone givin ole Hillary a rough time
is welcome round my campfire

Agreed. I wonder if Biden is going to run, that would add to her misery.

I hope not
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems like christy is going to throw his hat in too......this guy is known for wasting tax payer money on personal matters.....trips /wfriends, family (aunts, uncles, cousins etc:) .....60 thou a year on pro games etc:......:)

Seems like christy is going to throw his hat in too......this guy is known for wasting tax payer money on personal matters.....trips /wfriends, family (aunts, uncles, cousins etc:) .....60 thou a year on pro games etc:......:)

So when he grows up to the big leagues he want to Graft like its 1999?

Seems like christy is going to throw his hat in too......

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9500000/happy-sponge-future-wives-of-spongebob-9518085-1024-768.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems like christy is going to throw his hat in too......this guy is known for wasting tax payer money on personal matters.....trips /wfriends, family (aunts, uncles, cousins etc:) .....60 thou a year on pro games etc:......:)

All they have to do to blow Christy off is show the tape of him trying to hug everyone in the owners box. We all knew that guy in HS. I don't want him for President.

Christie totally reminds me of Nixon

Can't be trusted Period....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think Trump's mexico bashing is quite refreshing actually
someone who's not afraid to tell it like it really is...
~
Think about it.... Right now... there are men and these are some
of the most skilled masons in the world....
are digging tunnels underneath our border on a professional scale.

the influx of crystal meth and black tar heroine FLOODING this
country is paramount to an act of WAR. Screw cyber terrorism in
comparison.
Every US major city has an established colony of
huge scale importers to handle the insane volume coming in.

and of course think about the Submarines that are totally avoiding detection
of the coast guard bringing in many tons each week so that the price
of a better and more sophisticated sub is paid for with a few trips. :hs:

That's why we need to end the prohibition on weed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2 years ago I thought he represented a good chance for the Repubs. to retake the WH if he lost weight and keeped his temper in check. Now, no chance.

Nothing a little diebold voting machine voter fraud can't fix.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing a little diebold voting machine voter fraud can't fix.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or a bunch of dead registered voters In certain districts to counteract. Gimme a break. No offense but that is the fodder of tinfoil helmet folks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's also great for trolling good responses :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's also great for trolling good responses :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some that lean to the left actually believed diebold was trying to rig the election.

Come hang out in Worcester for awhile you will see why knee jerk reactions happen. It gets more incendiary every year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9500000/happy-sponge-future-wives-of-spongebob-9518085-1024-768.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



EXCELLENT!!....:)

Or a bunch of dead registered voters In certain districts to counteract. Gimme a break. No offense but that is the fodder of tinfoil helmet folks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep

It's also great for trolling good responses :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, perpetuate the lie for trolling purposes. What could go wrong?

Oh, and it is only Gerrymandering when the otherside does it, hahaha

Murica!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's why we need to end the prohibition on weed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sugar sodas: A new study says that these beverages are responsible for approximately 184,000 adult deaths not just in the United States but all over the world.

prohibit soda before cannabis makes more sense

Or a bunch of dead registered voters In certain districts to counteract. Gimme a break. No offense but that is the fodder of tinfoil helmet folks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree both are for the tin foil segment. But Republican's sure seem to spend a lot of time passing laws requiring ID.

And redistributing votes by redistricting areas based on minority populations to alter voting results
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree both are for the tin foil segment. But Republican's sure seem to spend a lot of time passing laws requiring ID.

So the Replublicans want people to produce an ID that basically states that they meet the requirements of voting, like being a citizen, born or naturalized, the most sacred right given to citizens, the ability to elect someone to (supposedly) represent you in government. But that raysssist!

Yet, needing an ID to drive a car, gain employment, access certain utilities, and flying on a plane are normal, an easily accessible FREE ID that proves you are who you say you are is wrong?


And redistributing votes by redistricting areas based on minority populations to alter voting results
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But what you are unwilling to admit is that BOTH parties Gerrymander.

republicans will be first to vote |yes|



for the mark of the beast

Me thinks the one with the mark of the beast will be a populist, republicans seem to be anything but these days.

With the up roar over donald the one shot repubs may have to win the Latino vote may just be Rubio... I'm sure they will be out in force on election day......:)

So the Replublicans want people to produce an ID that basically states that they meet the requirements of voting, like being a citizen, born or naturalized, the most sacred right given to citizens, the ability to elect someone to (supposedly) represent you in government. But that raysssist!



I missed the part here where anyone said it was racist. But who does it overwhelmingly prevent from voting?

Off to see the fireworks now!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

excellent Bernie article.......

His pose is not the traditional progressive managerial-empiricist posture but a moral one. He is very fond of the word “moral” — “moral imperative,” “moral disaster,” “moral crisis” — and those who see the world differently are not, in his estimate, guilty of misunderstanding, or ignorance, or bad judgment: They are guilty of “crimes.”

He is a national socialist in the mode of Hugo Chávez. He isn’t driven by racial hatred; he’s driven by political hatred. And that’s bad enough. “This is not about me,” Bernie is fond of saying. Instead, he insists, it’s about building a grassroots movement that will be in a permanent state of “political revolution” — his words — against the people he identifies as class enemies: Kochs, Waltons, Republicans, bankers, Wall Street, Them – the numerically inferior Them. His views are totalitarian inasmuch as there is no aspect of life that he believes to be beyond the reach of the state, and they are deeply illiberal inasmuch as he is willing to jettison a great deal of American liberalism — including freedom of speech — if doing so means that he can stifle his enemies’ ability to participate in the political process. He rejects John F. Kennedy’s insistence that “a rising tide lifts all boats” — and he is willing to sink as many boats as is necessary in his crusade against the reality that some people make more money than others.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421369/print

excellent Bernie article.......

His pose is not the traditional progressive managerial-empiricist posture but a moral one. He is very fond of the word “moral” — “moral imperative,” “moral disaster,” “moral crisis” — and those who see the world differently are not, in his estimate, guilty of misunderstanding, or ignorance, or bad judgment: They are guilty of “crimes.”

He is a national socialist in the mode of Hugo Chávez. He isn’t driven by racial hatred; he’s driven by political hatred. And that’s bad enough. “This is not about me,” Bernie is fond of saying. Instead, he insists, it’s about building a grassroots movement that will be in a permanent state of “political revolution” — his words — against the people he identifies as class enemies: Kochs, Waltons, Republicans, bankers, Wall Street, Them – the numerically inferior Them. His views are totalitarian inasmuch as there is no aspect of life that he believes to be beyond the reach of the state, and they are deeply illiberal inasmuch as he is willing to jettison a great deal of American liberalism — including freedom of speech — if doing so means that he can stifle his enemies’ ability to participate in the political process. He rejects John F. Kennedy’s insistence that “a rising tide lifts all boats” — and he is willing to sink as many boats as is necessary in his crusade against the reality that some people make more money than others.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421369/print

He's also a warped pervert who famously wrote (in the 1970s, I think?) that women fantasize about being gang-raped (now, of course, he says that was taken out of context).

Just imagine for a SECOND, if a GOP candidate said that.

Consider your options wisely.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11482176
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's also a warped pervert who famously wrote (in the 1970s, I think?) that women fantasize about being gang-raped (now, of course, he says that was taken out of context).

Just imagine for a SECOND, if a GOP candidate said that.
You "think" is an oxymoron because you're not thinking. Really?

You "think" is an oxymoron because you're not thinking. Really?

Do you ever back up your insults with evidence? Ever? Just once?

Google it. He wrote it. Sorry if it makes him look like the deranged lunatic that he is, but he wrote it.

http://nypost.com/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-wrote-an-essay-saying-that-women-fantasize-about-rape/

Consider your options wisely.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11482176
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You got lied to, and you bought it. The quote is wrong, and they did that for a reason. Here is an audio of what he actually said...

Cruz said that the back-to-back decisions (re-writing Obamacare and the gay marriage ruling) "SOME OF the darkest 24 hours in our nations history", caps added by me for emphasis.

Here is the unedited audio...

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuBWnloUOb8k_LOf5Ct874KbvZx4?p=ted+cru z+gay+marriage+darkest+24+hours&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-337&fp=1

If I were you, I'd be upset with that website for playing me for a sucker and lying to me.

Alan Dershowitz is a very liberal professor at Harvard Law, who said that Cruz is one of the most brilliant students he ever had. Cruz won't be in the race for long, not enough people like him. But he respects the US Constitution, which enrages liberals, like the ones who run that website you cited.

Also Nebe, if you are curious to know why Cruz is so troubled by what SCOTUS did...it's not because he hates gays, but rather, because he respects the Constitution.

I am in favor of gay marriage. If it were put to a vote here in CT, I would cast a vote to legalize it. That being said, I am equally sickened by what SCOTUS did, because they had no constitutional authority to do so. It's a state issue, not a federal issue. And these 9 judges are not elected, they are appointed for life. So, what scares people like me and Ted Cruz, is the notion that 9 people who are not answerable to anyone, can decide when the Constitution really exists and when it doesn't. That's territory better left to elected officials, who can be voted out if we don't like what they are doing.

Good point. I agree about that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Consider your options wisely.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11482176
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Jim in CT discredited the characterization of Ted Cruz in the article you posted, and he presented further, constitutional, reasoning for Cruz's comment with which you agreed.

All it took was the insertion of two relevant words left out by the article to totally change the perspective on what Cruz actually said. It is that kind of manipulation of language by SCOTUS judges which distorts the meaning and the principles underlying the Constitution, and which provides cover for the politicians' transformation of our democratic republic into a centralized "democracy"--a democracy of the worst kind. One in which the "people" cede their responsibility of local and personal self governance to a centralized bureaucracy. In effect, rule strictly by simple majority opinion over the entire diversity of individuals and populations which comprise the nation of supposedly free people. And because the majority opinion is based on distorted language which ridicules and destroys principles that protect against the tyranny of the majority, the democracy is a form of mobocracy.

And the mob, mostly comprised of "good" intentioned people (what Lenin referred to as useful idiots) is kept under the influence of the central bureaucracy by its steady stream of good intentioned propaganda and its constant distortion of language to destroy old and burdensome notions and principles of individual freedom in favor of the easy, by simple vote, handouts and privileges granted by the central government.

Your article is full of such language and ideological distortion:


By Paul Thomas


"Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz called it "the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history". Was he referring to:

• The outbreak of the Civil War.

• The assassination of Abraham Lincoln or John Kennedy or Martin Luther King.

• The 1929 Wall St crash.

• Pearl Harbour.

• 9/11.

• The realisation that the immensely costly and destructive Iraq War was launched on the basis of a lie."

So the author gives a list of bullet points which, in his opinion, outrank the SCOTUS decisions in "darkness." Of course, he doesn't actually discuss the possibility of "darkness" in the SCOTUS decision because, I assume, he doesn't think they were dark at all. On the contrary, one is left with the impression they were the essence of light.

In any case, we are to think they are darker than the Court's decisions and, ergo, Cruz is some sort of idiot for claiming otherwise.

"None of the above: according to Cruz, America's darkest day was when the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage."

Jim's pointing out the two words "one of" destroys the premise of the author's attempt to ridicule.

"Thus the extension of health insurance, previously the preserve of the rich, "

This is language distortion to the max. It's a blatant lie. Health insurance was not a preserve of the rich before the ACA.

"and marriage, previously the preserve of the straight, is [the Court's decisions] worse than war, depression, assassination and mass murder."

This is distortion by implication and concocted definition. He implies that marriage somehow existed as an open state of being, then defines it as a "preserve." And that the "preserve" was (unfairly?) claimed by "the straight". This is a reversal of how language works. Words attempt to define what exists. He seems to think that the word "marriage" somehow existed before there was something which it defined. And after that reversal of linguistic function, he defines marriage as a "preserve" which can be expanded to include things that the word never before described. He, like the Judges, redefines marriage. He can, as a propagandist, redefine and twist words however he wishes. But when Judges do so, the basis of law is destroyed. But the author, Thomas, doesn't seem to think that such judicial distortion ranks as a dark day. That the destruction of the basis for law is anywhere near, or at all, as dark as his bullet points.

And what does fellow Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee believe will "bring death to America":

• Bird flu.

• Climate change.

• Isis.

• North Korean nuclear missiles.

• Obesity.

• Psychopathic gunmen wrapped in the Confederate flag.

Again, none of the above: Huckabee was referring to the just-announced nuclear deal with Iran. He wasn't alone. It appears all 17 Republican presidential hopefuls believe the treaty painstakingly negotiated by the US, Russia, China, Britain and France is not merely not worth the paper it's written on, it's positively catastrophic.

This is an extension of the metaphorical bullet points technique which is an introduction of them as a piling on that is disconnected from any need to use them. Whether any of his bullet points will bring death to America has nothing to do with whether the nuclear deal will.

It will - Huckabee again - "wipe Israel off the map". It's worth pointing out that Israel, itself often accused of being a terrorist state, has a nuclear arsenal whereas Iran doesn't and, by virtue of this treaty, won't have for at least a decade.

Israel being accused of being a terrorist state does not diminish the potential for Iran to wipe them off the map. Another non-sequitor intended to deflect and inject moral equivalence. Well, gee . . . If Israel can wipe Iran off the map, why shouldn't Iran be able to wipe Israel off the map? I don't know . . . have we been hearing Israel constantly shouting death to Iran?

So apart from bringing death to America and Israel, are there any other flaws? You bet: it will lead to widespread war in the Middle East.

Leaving aside the fact that war in the Middle East is the current and normal state of affairs, this assertion begs the question of how the critics would deal with Iran and its nuclear programme. Well, by making war in the Middle East even more widespread or, as the 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain put it, singing along to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

Oh gosh . . . war in the Middle East is "normal" (according to the author) so we may as well encourage nuclear proliferation there. This could even bring a "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb" each other out of existence as a final end to that perpetual war. Good choice.

Fittingly, given that the Republicans are now essentially a party of religious fundamentalism,

Blatant lie in the form of outlandish generalization. Thomas is warming up to hyper-propaganda mode here.

their candidates are partly taking their lead from Zionist Israel and Wahhabist Saudi Arabia who are terrified - hopefully with good reason - that the Iran deal foreshadows a seismic realignment which reduces their malign influence on US Middle East policy.

AHA! Zionist and Wahhabist! That says it all. In a couple of inflammatory words. Nothing else going on there. Sums it up. And taking their lead . . . the Republican candidates are puppets of Zionists and Wahhabists. Propaganda getting hotter.

But their kneejerk (Ooooh . . . kneejerk. a favorite propaganda accusation denunciations also signal a frightening Ooooh . . . frightening.abandonment of diplomacy as a means of defusing tension, avoiding conflict and managing international affairs. The mindset seems to be that diplomacy should be reserved for friendly nations with whom you have interests in common. Right, right, the Republican candidates would never stoop to diplomacy. This guy really knows their mindset . . . even better than they know themselves. That they remain disposed towards armed intervention Sanctions are armed intervention? Weren't sanctions a part of the diplomatic negotions? Oh, that's right . . . the Repubs only use war.which has accelerated rather than suppressed Islamic militancy He knows this not as a talking point but as a fact? Hasn't the "normal" state of war in the Middle East been accelerating ever since Israel became a state? Armed intervention (which slowed it down until the intervention stopped) has caused the acceleration?shouldn't come as a surprise since persisting with policies that achieve the exact opposite of what was intended is something of an American speciality. Yup, especially the progressive American left and its destruction of rule of law and governing by whim.

The takeover of American conservatism by evangelical Christianity, Fox News and a handful of shadowy billionaires has transformed the Republicans into the party of wilful ignorance: doctrinal purity is more valued than intelligence; tolerance has been supplanted by persecutory moralising; paranoia has replaced realism.

His statement here is almost true. Except that the " wilful ignorance: doctrinal purity is more valued than intelligence; tolerance has been supplanted by persecutory moralising; paranoia has replaced realism" applies more so to the very people this author presumably supports.

This process may be reaching its logical conclusion with the emergence of property billionaire Donald Trump as the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination.

He's an evangelical Christian, has doctrinal purity, believes in military intervention . . . etc. etc.? He's the logical conclusion to all that stuff? Man . . . the distortion of language, the lying, the propaganda, the need to use the Marxist terminology . . . the would-be socialist unveils himself.

Trump personifies everything the rest of the world despises about America: casual racism, crass materialism, relentless self-aggrandisement, vulgarity on an epic scale. He is the Ugly American in excelsis.

You might expect a tycoon/buffoon cross to be a political player in some Latin American failed state or backward former Soviet republic, places with no democratic tradition or public institutions that have stood the test of time and no such thing as "the people" in the sense of an educated, civic-minded citizenry.

The fact that so many Republicans are comfortable with the thought of this monumentally unqualified individual in the Oval Office shows how warped the party has become. To borrow the rhetoric of their candidates, the party is now an existential threat to America's leadership of the global community.

The grand finale ends in a crescendo of moralistic accusations against a man who the author claims to be the conclusion to American Conservatism . . . and yet he fails to see the other Republican candidates scurrying to denounce Trump themselves . . . strange.

Well, not so strange. His version "of an educated, civic-minded citizenry", if he subscribes to progressive government, is a people who are educated into a statist mind of evolved Marxism. A state of being influenced by the distortion of words and abandonment of principles.

How can you not like this guy? Seriously... Give this a watch.

http://youtu.be/OQaTkOWKa8o
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To make it simple, nothing new here from Sanders , move along typical Lib/ Socialistic BS.

Throw employer and taxpayer $$$$$ at it and all is well, except one thing .

Employers will have to raise prices, hitting the middle class, and employers
will have to lay off workers, cut back on growth and not be able to higher new
people. All lands on enterprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXo5fe7dYWk&sns=em
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I find him difficult to believe

How can you not like this guy? Seriously... Give this a watch.

http://youtu.be/OQaTkOWKa8o
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The notion of creating a great environment with no poverty, and all we need to do is tweax tax rates on the zillionaires to achieve it, does sound awesome. I'm just not sure it's realistic, for sure no one has been able to pull it off. In fact. if you look at states in our country with the highest tax rates (NY, NJ, CT, MA, IL), are those states doing so swell?

Nebe, it's kind of tragic, I bet most of us have very similar visions for how we wish things looked. We just have different ideas of how to achieve it.

I have a brother who I love and admire, he is an administrator in the New Haven CT public sachools. Great brain, greater heart. He loves Bernie Sanders too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXo5fe7dYWk&sns=em
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe Bernie isn't as consistent as he is touted to be, nor as "independent.":

http://socialistworker.org/2006-2/610/610_11_BernieSanders.shtml

But that's OK. Consistency is not, in itself, a good thing. It depends on what you are consistent about. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said " A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Being consistent as a "little statesman" about foolish notions on how to govern is not something to be proud of. To consistently advocate "socialist" policies for a nation whose framework is built upon individual freedom is a foolish consistency.

Lol.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To consistently advocate "socialist" policies for a nation whose framework is built upon individual freedom is a foolish consistency.

truly the key....

Freedom is the buzzword of fools.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Freedom is the buzzword of fools.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just googled that out of curiosity.....you might be the first with that quote,,,, although I'm sure many tyrants have made similar statements

Freedom is the buzzword of fools.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe - what is freedom? What is the state of existence where you don't have freedom?

Nebe - what is freedom? What is the state of existence where you don't have freedom?

Freedom in my opinion is the ability to do what you want as long as it is not hurting your neighbor. Freedom is allowing bass master and fish wee wee to have a raging province town wedding. Freedom is a Jewish family, a Muslim family, a Muslim family and a bunch of hippies living in the same sub division neighborhood with a condo association.
Freedom is not imposing your religious beliefs on others, holy wars based on oil fields and political oligarchy serving a few handful of interests. That's fascism ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Freedom in my opinion is the ability to do what you want as long as it is not hurting your neighbor. Freedom is allowing bass master and fish wee wee to have a raging province town wedding. Freedom is a Jewish family, a Muslim family, a Muslim family and a bunch of hippies living in the same sub division neighborhood with a condo association.
Freedom is not imposing your religious beliefs on others, holy wars based on oil fields and political oligarchy serving a few handful of interests. That's fascism ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at a list of Sanders top donors, all labor unions. Isn't that being beholden to a small handful of interests? How is that any different than being beholden to big banks?

for real Jim ? You can't see the difference? Unions, while not perfect stand up for workers rights. What to banks stand up for except stealing or children's future with government bailouts because they are too big to fail. That means they can get away with zero accountability.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Freedom in my opinion is the ability to do what you want as long as it is not hurting your neighbor. Sounds good--in line with how the Founders saw it. Freedom is allowing bass master and fish wee wee to have a raging province town wedding. So long as it is not hurting your neighbor? Freedom is a Jewish family, a Muslim family, a Muslim family and a bunch of hippies living in the same sub division neighborhood with a condo association.
Freedom is not imposing your religious beliefs on others, nor your personal beliefs and life style choices on others as well? holy wars based on oil fields and political oligarchy serving a few handful of interests. That's fascism ;) or political wars on religious beliefs and "traditional" values?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Freedom is the buzzword of fools.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Freedom may be the buzzword of some fools, especially those who equate it with license. But it is also a word, if used wisely, that describes a universal human yearning to be rid of oppression, whether from such oppressions as hunger or fear as FDR envisioned freedom to be, or, as the Founders intended, from human coercions among which would be despotic government. But the two views disagree on the source of freedom.

The Founders believed the source was beyond the capacity of humans to give. That freedom was essentially inalienable and should only be limited by societal agreement. That we are essentially born free to do whatever we are capable of doing, but, in order to preserve that freedom for ourselves and others, that we should be responsible for our actions, and agree not to impinge on others' freedom to do the same.

FDR and his progressive cohorts, believed that the source of freedom was government. And therefor, the people are free to do what the government allows. A rather harsh version of this is explained on a quote attributed to Stalin:

So, society (and not just "bourgeois" society) sets the limits of individual choice, even (and maybe especially) while those limitations are invisible to casual view. These limitations are seen as the utmost of freedom, because they are accepted by members of the society as the "definition" of "freedom". If the limits of your chains are the definition of freedom - then, by definition, the length of your chains is "freedom".

The question is who puts the chains on whom. The Founders say that the chains are put on government which is in turn allowed to place very limited chains on the people. Marxists, socialists, progressives say that government is unlimited in its choice of chains for the people.

Both systems, the constitutional and the progressive, still depend, at least outwardly, on votes by the people. But if all that is required to enchain the people is the gathering of votes, then freedom in the founding sense, is at the mercy of the highest bidders and/or the most determined or persuasive tyrant. That is the condition the progressives have created and is the most advantageous to their power.

Constitutionalism, on the other hand, if adhered to, safeguards against that despotism.

Whether Bernie would govern progressively or constitutionally is the important distinction on which you should vote, not on nice promises of what he will give you.

If freedom is merely a buzzword for you and not worth an iota of a promised security which you are not capable of achieving yourself, Bernie may be your man.

I still believe that Franklin's "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" applies to your choice.

Speaking of your mention of license. I read the other day that a license is when the government takes away one of your freedoms and sells it back to you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whether Bernie would govern progressively or constitutionally is the important distinction on which you should vote, not on nice promises of what he will give you.



Nice promises that all the hard working people will provide for you with the
sweat of their brows.

Nice promises that all the hard working people will provide for you with the
sweat of their brows.
Trickle up VS. Trickle down.
How has trickle down worked for the economy? Ho has generated the new wealth in the last 10 years? Not you. Not me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for real Jim ? You can't see the difference? Unions, while not perfect stand up for workers rights. What to banks stand up for except stealing or children's future with government bailouts because they are too big to fail. That means they can get away with zero accountability.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You can't see the difference?"

Not really. A union and a big corporation are both looking out for their own interests, both are likely to elect politicians who will act in pursui tof those interests.

"Unions, while not perfect stand up for workers rights"

I'm a worker. No union does anything for me, except, in the case of public unions, jack my taxes up. Unions advocate for their members often at the terrible expense of everyone else, and they aren't bothered by that at all.

Aetna, Travelers, and The Hartford are headquartered in CT. They haven't done anywhere near the damage to our state, that the unions have done.

"What to banks stand up for except stealing or children's future"

Here in CT, my kids each owe the state thousands and thousands of dollars, to pay for the insane perks that the labor unions bought from corrupt democrats. I don't know how Bank Of America has done anything remotely malignant to my kids.

Trickle up VS. Trickle down.
How has trickle down worked for the economy? Ho has generated the new wealth in the last 10 years? Not you. Not me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"How has trickle down worked for the economy?"

Here's how. If someone gets to keep more of their own money, they will either spend it, invest it, or save it in the bank. All help the economy.

How does saving money help the economy?!?!?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How does saving money help the economy?!?!?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I put my money in the bank, say a savings account...that's the money banks use to make loans. That makes it possible for the banks to give someone a mortgage to buy their dream house, it gives banks the capital they need to make business loans, student loans, car loans, boat loans, etc.

Unless people put their money in a mattress or a coffee can, and no one does that, that money is in circulation, and it absolutely helps the economy. Does that make sense? Not sure I explained it well.

I don't buy for one second that the government can do a better job of spending my money than I can. Thus, I believe the economy is better off if individuals get to keep (and therefore inject into the economy) as much of their money as is reasonable.

Now, if the govt takes more of my money, it will obviously spend that (here in CT, they will spend it two or three times!), so that's helping the economy too. But why would anyone presume that govt spending is superior to individuals spending their own money?

Makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We don't always agree, but you seem like a truly open-minded, willing-to-listen guy. I know I could learn a lot from you in that regard. I respect that.

i try to look at everything objectively.
While money in banks may help with mortgages, loans, etc.. In my opinion the way to really get the economy humming is to somehow get people's pay rate higher and get those people to spend their money at family owned mom and pop businesses... Eat and shop local, and to buy American.
These trade agreements like the TPP is nothing but a way for American companies to continue outsourcing jobs overseas and import cheaper crap.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i try to look at everything objectively.
While money in banks may help with mortgages, loans, etc.. In my opinion the way to really get the economy humming is to somehow get people's pay rate higher and get those people to spend their money at family owned mom and pop businesses... Eat and shop local, and to buy American.
These trade agreements like the TPP is nothing but a way for American companies to continue outsourcing jobs overseas and import cheaper crap.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the way to really get the economy humming is to somehow get people's pay rate higher"

Agreed.

Trickle up VS. Trickle down.
How has trickle down worked for the economy? Ho has generated the new wealth in the last 10 years? Not you. Not me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

New wealth is constantly being created, but mostly not reported in popular media. Old wealth, obversely, is constantly being destroyed and mostly not being reported in popular media.

Among the largest new wealth creation in the last 10 years is a result of trickle down . . . trickle down government stimulus money distributed to banks in hope of "stimulating" the economy . . . and trickle down government bailout money trickled into the wallets of banks and corporations and unions.

i try to look at everything objectively.
While money in banks may help with mortgages, loans, etc.. In my opinion the way to really get the economy humming is to somehow get people's pay rate higher

The least inflationary ways to get pay rates higher is to reduce the government's bite in the people's paychecks, and to reduce regulatory burdens on business which reduces the cost of doing business (as well as making it possible for new businesses, especially smaller ones, to be created) which can lower the price of products (making pay rates higher) and make U.S. produced goods more competitive on the world market.

But arbitrarily mandating hikes in pay, such as increasing minimum wage, or negotiating as a matter of course for higher pay every three years, as in union contracts (especially public unions) results in short term pay gains which are shortly wiped out by the ensuing inflationary effect and must, as a matter of course, constantly be renegotiated at higher levels . . . infinitum . . . distorting market forces and eventually creating an artificially inflated and uncompetitive market ripe for "outsourcing jobs overseas."

and get those people to spend their money at family owned mom and pop businesses...

Regulatory costs and restrictions make it harder and harder to start mom and pop businesses, and the government/big business complex (which fuels regulatory costs and restrictions) favors big business and adds to the already existing natural competitive advantage big volume stores have over small ones.

Eat and shop local, and to buy American.
These trade agreements like the TPP is nothing but a way for American companies to continue outsourcing jobs overseas and import cheaper crap.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds as if you like the old notion of America described by de Tocqueville as a nation of shop keepers. Those were the days of a much freer laissez faire "free market" which rather conflicts with your desire to somehow control the market a la socialism.

Bam

http://youtu.be/bGv2SPB8pNU
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and Bam with Lil B!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeGmLUY566o

and Bam Bam with Jesse (The Body) Ventura and Henry Rollins!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnxHXIjv9dk

with bernie introducing new legislation to end
the profit from prisons industry

we'll see how things go.... in congress

the failed on_going WAR on drugs is still a prohibition
style war... that will make all the candidates have to
reveal their positions now that a US GOVERNMENT site
has finally just admitted that cannabis cures cancer.