I love this guy.

[Nebe]

This is worth a read. Bernie sanders discussing family values.
Sorry about the cheesy title of the article.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/...es-agenda.html

[scottw]

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!!!

[Pete F.]

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.

[scottw]

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

[Nebe]

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

[Raven]

in contrast

what do ya think of nj gov

[detbuch]

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Jim in CT]

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

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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....

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[Jim in CT]

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?

[Pete F.]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Nebe]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[Fly Rod]

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)....

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[Fly Rod]

This is all I have to say

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

....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?

[JohnR]

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.

[Nebe]

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