Sanders: America Was Founded On ‘Racist Principles. That’s A Fact.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

It's true. When this nation was founded, the only people with "equal" rights were rich, landowning, white men. Everyone else could go kick rocks for all the government cared.

And Sanders says everyone has rights but them evil land 'owning' rich folks.

Then there is his stance on gun owners. Hey now neither one has any rights as far as he is concerned.

So I see scant difference between 'modern' government and what Sanders is demagoguing.

originally posted by: neo96
And Sanders says everyone has rights but them evil land 'owning' rich folks.

This is a strawman. We both know that Sanders isn't saying that at all.

Then there is his stance on gun owners. Hey now neither one has any rights as far as he is concerned.

Another strawman... But then again, strawmans are what you do best. If gun owners didn't have rights, they wouldn't be able to protest or make goofy threads like yours whining when they imagine their rights are being trampled.

So I see scant difference between 'modern' government and what Sanders is demagoguing.

I know, but that is more a personal problem with you than an actual problem with how things are. If you were more intellectually honest, you wouldn't have this problem.

a reply to: whyamIhere

I'd agree that rich, landowning men are still "more equal" than most, but things definitely have changed. The little guy has FAR more representation in government than he used to. Also, you may notice that I didn't put the adjective "white" in front of rich, landowning men. That's because you can be ethnically diverse and rich but still get priority access to things.

The system isn't perfect yet, but we are moving in the right direction.

It was founded and bred of racism.
People don't want to acknowledge it because they still
enjoy the privileges that now come with pretending it's not there.
I look at white supremacist with laughter when they say black
people are quick to use "the card" when they're even quicker
to make disgusting derogatory statements due to just someone's
color. There are those that don't consider themselves racist
are quick themselves to say some use "the card" but would never say
this of a jewish person calling to something being antisemetic.
A movie about jewish people going through the holocaust is considered
"a triumph of cinema" while a movie about black people enduring
slavery is "they're just trying to steer the narrative."
This nation continues to be a racists wonderland -

- People are still left unemployable due to their name not being "white"
- People are left unemployable due to their address not being "white"
- People are constantly vilified and harassed and prosecuted for not being white
- People become a mob of hatred solely because a fictional white character is made
black

There are more I can list but I can go on forever - some term it (white guilt) or
(black sympathizer), but truth is I have seen some people show more humanity to
an animal than they ever would to a person just because they are BLACK.


-Toy the Bear

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a strawman. We both know that Sanders isn't saying that at all.

No it isn't.

That comes straight from Mao Tse Sanders own lips.

Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class, or do we continue to slide into economic and political oligarchy?

berniesanders.com...

Sanders get's his talking points straight from the communist manifesto.

Another strawman... But then a

No it's not.

Sanders supports the willful violation of the civil liberties of gun owners.

Tougher background check that violates the 4th amendment.



We are talking about rights being denied at the beginnng of this country.

Sanders wants to CONTINUE that selective outrage.

The only straw mans here is the snip Sanders spews.

a reply to: neo96

Neo! Just, stop it!!

This entire thread should be in LUDICROUS ONLINE LIES....it's more than a rant, it is blantant political shilling and DISINFORMATION.

Stop it. Just STOP IT. Stop telling lies. We (or at least I) get it. You are anti government, a prepper, and insist on having your arsenal as huge as you'd like. That is the ONLY reason you would you need an AK-47 with dozens of rounds!

Bernie's position is not popular with gun-control liberals. You are not aware of that, because you don't "pay attention to politicians" (and don't actually read their platforms, but are fine posting a political baiting thread with FALSE INFORMATION).

Here is an article I suggest you READ:
Bernie Sanders' Gun Control Affair: It's Complicated

Even though Bernie Sanders' rhetoric on income inequality resonates with liberals, his opposition to waiting periods for firearm purchases should serve as a call for his supporters to critically analyze his record. If they become vocal in their constructive criticism on his gun control, there might be a chance that he will reform his stance. However, if they blindly follow his lead without noting his faults, they may end up abetting legislation that runs against the tidal wave of scientific literature on gun control and expands the public health crisis.

Here is what Bernie wants:

On Guns: A mixed approach. No federal handgun waiting period. Some protection for gun manufacturers. Ban assault weapons.
Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns.

In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Apr 30, 2015

www.ontheissues.org...

ETA:
P.S. If you had ever paid any attention at all to what I have been saying for years, you'd know that I am a gunowner, and know how to shoot. My husband is a veteran MP, and he has taught me a great deal about defensive gunmanship, target shooting, surveillance, etc.

NOT ALL SANDERS SUPPORTERS are anti-gun. HE IS NOT particularly anti-gun.

FFS, neo. PLEASE. If you're gonna come to (or call) these meetings, you have to pay attention. At least be sure you have done actual research.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a strawman. We both know that Sanders isn't saying that at all.

No it isn't.

That comes straight from Mao Tse Sanders own lips.

Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class, or do we continue to slide into economic and political oligarchy?

berniesanders.com...

Sanders get's his talking points straight from the communist manifesto.

Not a single part of that quote you just quote mined says that bernie is saying that rich people don't have rights. It's still a strawman.

Another strawman... But then a

No it's not.

Sanders supports the willful violation of the civil liberties of gun owners.

Tougher background check that violates the 4th amendment.

We are talking about rights being denied at the beginnng of this country.

Sanders wants to CONTINUE that selective outrage.

Irrelevant. You just said that Bernie thinks that gun owners don't have ANY rights.

The only straw mans here is the snip Sanders spews.

Erm... This is a misuse of the term "strawman". I'm not quite sure you actually know what a strawman is... Even if you don't agree with Sanders' rhetoric, that doesn't mean they are strawmans.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I missed the lies.

the right of people to do or say things that are not illegal without being stopped or interrupted by the government

www.merriam-webster.com...

Except when it comes to rich folks.

Hey now they don't need all that money.

Their 14th amendment rights doesn't mean squat.

Except when it comes to gun owners.

They don't 'need' all them guns. They need to ask the state for permission to buy one.

a reply to: neo96

Read the ARTICLE and THE EXTEXT about his stance!!!

America Was Founded On ‘Racist Principles. That’s A Fact.

No. America was not founded on 'racist principles', because when you analyse the term 'racism', to what it actually pertains to, you come to understand that the term is used in error.

First and foremost, racism pertains to a person's 'race', their genetics and everything that pertains to genetics. A person's genetics, the colour of their skin, the type of hair they have, how tall or short, how weak or strong, how fat or thin, all these are genetic traits, none of which impact upon society. No. The real conflict behind the term 'racism' actually deals with 'mindset' and 'culture'.

Societies that arose out of Christian theocracy, which basically pertains to most Western countries, have (for instance) a defaulted incompatibility with the Moslem, and vice versa. This has nothing whatsoever to do with each others skin colour or genetic material. The conflict occurs as both cultures have derived out of historical mindsets that cannot be reconciled. It is important to understand this very important distinction. The clashes between mindsets has nothing whatsoever to do with 'race', and in all situations where the term racism is levelled at anyone, it is simply pointing out the distinction of the clashes and schism between differently held ideas, out of which cultures arise and have arisen. It is only through mindset and culture that conflict occurs.

This is how the term 'racism' is used wrongly. No one, not even the most ardent so-called racist hates a person simply because of their genetic make up, the concept makes no sense whatsoever. If you say you dislike or hate a person simply because of their colour, you might as well dislike or hate a rainbow, or anything else where colour is on show. Calling someone a racist, is like telling them they hate a person simply because the person they dislike has a head, or arms and legs, or hair and eyes. The term racist is a nonsensical and illogical statement to make, particularly when the 'race' of a person is not the point of the schism, it is the differences in mindset and culture.

Anti-Semitism refers to a hate of Jews simply because they are Jews. However, there is no such thing as a race of Jews, but there is a Jewish culture, and culture is not about race, it is about living an idea and expressing it through a mindset out of which a culture arises. 'Jewish-ness', is a culture, and therefore traceable back to an original idea. Not a single child, wherever they are born on this planet is born with an already identifiable culture. Every single child is born simply as a human being, with not a single idea or mindset or culture imprinted upon it. We are all given our mindset and culture by which we identify ourselves.

I know a number of Moslem people. As human beings they are indeed fathomable and amicable and friendly, but as Moslem they are incompatible with what I consider to be my mindset and my culture, which happens to be the host culture of the country I was born and live in. The issue is not about race or genetic material, it is about the mindset that promulgates a culture which is irreconcilable to my own, just as mine (in their view) is irreconcilable to their's.

Racism, and I include anti-Semitism, are terms used wrongly to shut down or prevent clashes between mindset and culture. The fact that ideas are ultimately viewpoints arising out of opinion, places them in validated positions for criticism, and thus it is wrong to try to shut down the conflict between different mindsets and cultures by appealing to race. No mindset or culture is about race or genetics. Genetics do not provide culture, but culture clothes genetics.

a reply to: neo96

What's next neo? Angrily lecturing empty chairs?

:-)

And, so - this is how we know - Bernard has a shot

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: neo96

What's next neo? Angrily lecturing empty chairs?

:-)

And, so - this is how we know - Bernie has a shot

Bernie has a shot ?

How the hell is that when it takes over $1 billion dollars to buy the American presidency.

Sanders doesn't like Rich folks very much, he doesn't like corporations very much.

Don't see Sanders having a snowballs chance in hell.

a reply to: elysiumfire

WOW That was 2 minutes i'm never getting back.
Thanks for writing a lot about nothing.
You're a Seinfield episode - congrats.
From how I read it you're stating racism doesn't exist
and this is all just one giant cultural misunderstanding?
hahahaha

-Toy the Bear

a reply to: neo96

lolololol

Something I don't type much here at ATS

Who you liking neo? Serious question

Stop shaking your fist at shadows and put some thought into it

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I don't see nothing to laugh about.

Who you liking neo? Serious question

Serious answer for the 4th time in the thread.

I DON'T LIKE ANY of them.

Not Trump, Not Bush. Not CLinton. and NOT Sanders.

There has been a lot of thought put in to this thread that has been ignored.

Maybe in another 200 years the future generations will see the BS.

TOYBEAR:

WOW That was 2 minutes i'm never getting back. Thanks for writing a lot about nothing. You're a Seinfield episode - congrats. From how I read it you're stating racism doesn't exist and this is all just one giant cultural misunderstanding? hahahaha

Many thanks ToyBear for your 'toy' reply. By all means, give me an example of genuine 'racism' and I will show you how it resolves down to differences in mindset and culture.

Another just for snips, and giggles.

Pricing the Bern: WSJ puts Sanders’ proposals at $18 trillion over 10 years

In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause. Mr. Sanders sees the money as going to essential government services at a time of increasing strain on the middle class.

$18 trillion in spending. Which will be nothing but DEBT.

Added on top of the already $18 trillion we currently have.

Which means if we do have a Sanders regime.

The national debt would be over $36 trillion dollars by the time Sanders is 'done'.

Oh now people that's just 'lies'.

a reply to: neo96

I don't see nothing to laugh about.

I disagree

What you worried about - if he's not goin' nowhere?

What does it matter what he says?

:-)

a reply to: elysiumfire

Okay - so I did read your "observation" correctly.
Do you believe in segregation?
Is that an option you see would resolve these cultural and mindset
walls so to speak?
I don't need to give you examples of racism as it seems you have
figured it all out - you're a smart one.

-Toy the Bear

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: whyamIhere

I am responsible for only things that happened when I am involved.

Did anyone say you were?

Nobody knows how it was...Nobody

BS, it is all documented, we called Indians savages put bounties on their heads and treated them as sub human.
Then stole their line and said we were just fulfilling a divine destiny.
Stick your head in the sand if you want but the truth doesn't changed.

The winners wrote the History...So, NOBODY has it exactly right.

Were whites and Mexicans horrible to the Indians..Hell Yes. It was horrible.

But, let's be honest. The common cold would kill the Natives. The didn't have a chance.

Far more Natives died from illness than from bullets.

"The Winners" wrote the Indians were beggars and theives.

I am not defending anyone's behavior...Again I wasn't there.