It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders is a nothing.

page: 12
35
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Kratos40

Didn't work for Gore too well,HE is missing hardware too.




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
What is his FOREIGN POLICY position?
Our Millitary is weaked by socialized programs to the point of excessive vulnerability.
If it continues we wil get too far behind ,get into a mess and need a draft.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

We are still miles ahead of anyone...

We should have a force able to protect our soil not enough to be fighting two wars constantly. We are guarded by two huge natural barriers that are the Atlantic and the Pacific, with the world's strongest navy, we are good.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

That is YOUR opinion, now may I know his?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Well it wasn't in response to what his is, it was in response to what you had to say. He had been against I think all the recent wars if that is what you are asking. What exactly do you want to know?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7



Our Millitary is weaked by socialized programs to the point of excessive vulnerability.


Really???



In 2015, United States defense spending will be greater than the spending of the next seven largest defense budgets combined

In his role as member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Bernie has been highly concerned with not only the immediate, overt costs of waging war, but also the less obvious and longer-term costs of engaging in military conflicts. In an op-ed for the Boston Globe, Bernie wrote:


“The cost of war is great, and it is far more than the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on planes, tanks, missiles and guns.

The cost of war is more than 6,800 service members who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost of war is caring for the spouses and children who have to rebuild their lives after the loss of their loved ones. It’s about hundreds of thousands of men and women coming home from war with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, many of them having difficulty keeping jobs in order to pay their bills. It’s about high divorce rates. It’s about the terrible tragedy of veterans committing suicide.”


Bernie Sanders on Military & Veterans

Unlike our present day corporate politicians, Mr Sanders has not forgotten the Vetrans that have served the
US of A !



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: elliotmtl
I'm perfectly happy for the government to be getting more of my money as long as it can be reasonably verified that my money is going to help less "fortunate" people than I. I'd rather pay 40 % taxes and know that most of it was feeding, clothing and sheltering people who need it, than pay 5% taxes and know that most of it was going to the military.
I'm perfectly happy with the government getting more of your money too. But if you want to take other people's money without their permission to support YOUR causes, then you belong in PRISON!



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: gladtobehere

Could it be that other people is able to see that the unregulated capitalist system has all but destroyed this nation?


Are you just regurgitating what the media has fed you? You can’t be serious. Unregulated? LOL

I don't think regulations are the answer.

Beezzer? Want to add to that?

New EPA Regs Issued Under Obama Are 38 Times as Long as Bible
cnsnews.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

YES really..www.armytimes.com...
Sounds like a 'Dove" who isn't paying attention like most of the left about our current cold war.
edit on 24-8-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

Sander's is not going to stop anysytemic methods of obfiscation that the VA always uses anyway.
edit on 24-8-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kellynap43

Just an observation.

According to some, government "has" to regulate, monitor, "police", many aspects (FDA, EPA, DoE )

I may be the only one (?) who thinks that government does a poor job and that we can save huge amounts of tax-payer money by farming out these "monitoring tasks" to outside contractors who will do it on time and within budget.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kellynap43

Just an observation.

According to some, government "has" to regulate, monitor, "police", many aspects (FDA, EPA, DoE )

I may be the only one (?) who thinks that government does a poor job and that we can save huge amounts of tax-payer money by farming out these "monitoring tasks" to outside contractors who will do it on time and within budget.



Well Said......I mean come on...... the United States Post office and our Social Security administration and the fact we are 19 trillion in debt shows the government reeks of efficiency and success!!! (Sarcasm)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: AlaskanDad

YES really..www.armytimes.com...
Sounds like a 'Dove" who isn't paying attention like most of the left about our current cold war.
Sander's is not going to stop anysytemic methods of obfiscation that the VA always uses anyway.


How much money do you think we should throw at the Army?

Has the Army chose to cut 40,000 troops as a scare tactic to gain more funds?


In 2015, United States defense spending will be greater than the spending of the next seven largest defense budgets combined


Maybe we should spend more the the rest of the countries on earth, not the mere 7 largest defense spenders?

One last question; should we support our vets, or just spend more for war?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Russia will be in YOUR lap first ,enjoy.www.businessinsider.com...
WHAT use is ANY CARE if you allow the world situation to degrade to the point where we have to go out and fix it again?


Toss the :TSA,DHS,DEA and ATF then fix taxes at 10% sales and dump the IRS.
THAT should cover the losses to our military.

They aren't mutually seperate but unified in fact.
The VA isn't supporting anything but what they are obligated to care for,in case you didn't know.SERVICE connected ONLY
I very MUCH do as I have a nonexistant illness,they don't recognize.
edit on 24-8-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

What politician in the last decade has done more for our vets then Mr Sanders?

As far as Russia, what else could you expect when swatting at a hornets nest?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
ALL of the the candidates, from both parties, want big govenement. That's where they all work. You don't like Bernie? Fine. A lot of people do. Why? Because he's so different than the rest of the carbon copy politicians out ther, (that's why Trump's getting so much attention too, not becuase he's a genius, for sure). So many of you guys on ATS are always screaming for a change. When a real change comes down the road, all you do is scream about going back to the way it was - in 1955. That's not going to happen. I say to hell with the billionaires. I say let's see what Bernie has to say, and how he does over the next 14 months before we decide he's worthless.

a reply to: gladtobehere



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I would think you would seek a more capable military to counter that.
As I haven't really kept track politically of who does what for vets I only know the outcome.
I would say I am nonplussed by all of them.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

So now instead of gov companies we just have private ones doing the same job?

Is the idea that if they don't meet the goals that they would be replaced and that would be better then having a gov agency?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

So now instead of gov companies we just have private ones doing the same job?

Is the idea that if they don't meet the goals that they would be replaced and that would be better then having a gov agency?


If they aren't meeting goals, then hire someone else who can.

Are government agencies the only ones qualified to perform the work?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Not at all, I didn't meant to frame it that way.

Just wondering how we can assume that private would do it better, cheaper, and more efficient.
Also doesn't really take care of the crony capitalism issue, but neither does what we have now.

ETA: Would this also be considered smaller gov? I mean the agencies objectives would still be there right?
Just not carried out by the gov, seems it would only be smaller by proxy.
edit on thMon, 24 Aug 2015 17:19:53 -0500America/Chicago820155380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

The one thing a private business has that government does not is the need to work against a budget and against the idea that if they do not produce the desired results, they can be fired.

Tell me the last time the government actually worried about coming in under budget or how we fire the government if it fails to produce the desired results.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join