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.

 

Can anyone give me a real reason Bernie is bad for America?

page: 22
37
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
He's going to run out of other people's money to give away. Especially sped up when they don't want confiscation AND can afford to move away taking their capital with them.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I could go for the Swiss system - an assault rifle in every house - but somehow think that idea may never catch on here.

My solution only works for me, and it has worked for me for years. If, however, everyone went in for it, the rest of the world would be railing against "US anarchy", and all American politicians would be very unhappy people... the only winners would be "the 99%". By electing ANYONE over this "99%", they are delegating responsibility for their own lives to someone else. It matters nary a whit whether the elected are on the "left" OR on the "right". They are still overlords, herding "the 99%" to the slaughterhouse. The only solution to that is to "go maverick", but if we all did that, ALL of the overlords would starve to damned death, including Bernie Sanders and his ilk.

Do you recall ever hearing the phrase "Swiss Bankers"? Decidedly not in this "99%", but hey, Switzerland has gotta get the money for all those social programs from SOMEWHERE, eh?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

I'm for anarchy on a personal level.

Not realistic, though.

I'm discussing the things that are realistic.

Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Clinton or Sanders are VERY VERY likely going to be the next president.

Which do you think would improve the life of the 99% the most ? Even if marginally.

Any other discussion in my opinion is just fantasy at this point in time, though I do like discussing fantasy at times.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

you know what they say about things that are too good to be true?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: reddragon2015

Bernies ideas are not too good to be true.

Taxes are going up.

The debt is going up.

It will upset the establishment.

There's negatives to his ideas... Just going up against the banks, and holding corporations accountable for what they owe, for the mess they've created, is a REALLY GOOD idea.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Well, there's 2 ways to look at this. 1) You look at the history of socialism and what it's done for the world and for people in general. Then you look at who has supported socialism and why they chose that form of government and the success they achieved with it. During your study you'll notice prior leaders such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao found socialism to be the government they deeply believes in. When researching these men and their countries you'll notice that a lot of their citizens died, along with citizens of other countries they invaded or oppressed. Now that you've learned all that you compare other governments of their day and age to socialism. This is where you make your choice to be a supporter of socialism. Your mind takes all this newly learned knowledge and you flush it out. You replace that knowledge with the thought process that when the United States was fighting Nazi Germany during WW2, Adolf Hitlers government was by far the better choice of government over any other. Joseph Stalin had a better handle of governing his country than any other capitalist nation in modernity. You slowly sell out common sense and actually believe that you can make socialism work. You embrace the gospel of envy. Now my comrade, you're now a liberal. And because liberalism is a mental disorder you'll never really comprehend the world in a clear thinking way.

And #2:
You live in this wonderful, amazing, realistic, yet fleeing, place called reality.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: nenothtu

I'm for anarchy on a personal level.


Well, that IS sorta how one defines anarchy - "on a personal level" - LOL! On a collective level, anarchy cannot exist - it ceases to exist when it becomes a collective!



Not realistic, though.


Not any more, I agree. There are just too many folks now who think they have some sort of right to tell everyone else what to do. It sort of upsets them when they get set straight - on a personal level, that is.



I'm discussing the things that are realistic.


I know you are - and that's what scares the bejesus out of me - that it COULD happen. Apparently there aren't already enough other folks trying to operate my life for me, so what we really need is MORE of them... and there is a good chance we may get just that. I'm old now, so I shouldn't worry over it so much, I guess. With any luck at all, I won't live long enough to see it happen anyhow - unless Bernie is more successful at forcing me into some kind of "health care" scam than Obama has been.

What the hell is wrong with letting me make my own decisions on "health care" anyhow, and seeing to that myself?



Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Clinton or Sanders are VERY VERY likely going to be the next president.

Which do you think would improve the life of the 99% the most ? Even if marginally.


And therein lies my problem - I care not at all for "the 99%", nor do I give a tinker's damn for "the 1%". I'm neither. I'm the 3.14x10^-7 % - an individual. I can't get interested in either of those herds - herds are for cattle and sheep, not men.

I suppose to really answer the question, i would have to know what you consider to be an improvement in life for this "99%". I think you and I may have a variance of opinion as to what that would entail. For myself, I would say "whichever leaves them alone the most", but I don't think that's the sort of idea you would subscribe to.

For example, "BernieCare". Would I be able to opt-out of it entirely? Neither pay in nor receive "benefits" from it? If the answer is "no" to either of those questions, then it has taken away the ability of "the 99%" to make up their own minds, or see to their own needs. Bernie will be doing their thinking for them, and forcing them into a place they may not want to go. How is that an "improvement" for any other than the overlords, who benefit from forced productivity at the expense of individual deermination?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu


What the hell is wrong with letting me make my own decisions on "health care" anyhow, and seeing to that myself?


The problem is that it's somehow "not fair" that you can make those decisions. That's the poor excuse for logic I keep hearing.

So apparently because you and I and a lot of other responsible people can make our own decisions about it, but someone (someones) cannot, those people who can't trump all our rights to do it for ourselves. So long as one person is incapable, we are all judged incapable and must be forced into a system where our "betters" do it all for us so that those who can't (or won't) are taken care of.

This is the same so-called logic that is used with gun control. It isn't enough that most of us are responsible. The ones who aren't must dictate how we shape policy for all the rest which means no one should have the opportunity to own their own firearm.

It's also the same so-called logic that demands the basic pay for everyone. Seatbelt laws. Motorcycle helmet laws. And other such things where someone decides we must all be forcibly saved whether we need it or not.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope

A job should not logically exist if it cannot support a person. A person should logically deny such a position, leveraging the business to either close, or become more reasonable in their offer.



Absolutely true, as far as it goes. the problem is that all folks are not equal, and some can live on less than others, so those jobs get filled by the frugal, who can make it on them.

Some may call the ever-grasping hand reaching for more and more money "greedy", but I don't. I don't care what they want, or what they have. I'm good with what I have, and I lack nothing I want, so I'm good - and I do it all on about a K and a half a month.

Socialism would break me, put me into a sort of poverty I've never in my life known. It's not even a poverty measured in dollars - it's a poverty measured in dignity. I'm good with dying before that ever happens.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

You seem rather determined to be left alone, but that won't happen!

I really do want a cabin with solar panels with a garden - off the grid one day.

As for now, I'm a part of society, and being such, you're never going to have an individualistic society where anarchy is present.. It's not going to happen! I don't know why you're still discussing it, personally.

I'm talking about real life earth.

There's a 99.9999999% chance things won't go the way you wish they would.

The other small chance? Is that there's a huge civil war - Which could be a version of progress, but I don't see that happening soon either.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

I guess I believe people should be able to opt out of everything - If they don't want... to use government roads, to use healthcare, they don't want social security - You should be able to opt out of all of it, pay no taxes - but also receive no benefits of society.

I'd be for that.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: nenothtu

You seem rather determined to be left alone, but that won't happen!


You may be right - the way things are going, me being left alone may not last much longer. On the other hand, you are also right that I am determined. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how long I can hold out, and whether or not I'm willing to give up the ghost first.




I really do want a cabin with solar panels with a garden - off the grid one day.



I hope you get it some day - but in a socialistic utopia, everyone else is gonna want one, too, so the supply my not be up to the demand in the near future.



As for now, I'm a part of society, and being such, you're never going to have an individualistic society where anarchy is present.. It's not going to happen! I don't know why you're still discussing it, personally.


Probably because I'm old and senile. An anarchy society is no more realistic than a socialist one - both are utterly impossible, as an ideal. What we are discussing is matters of degree. I want to be left alone as much as possible, and collectivist types want to insinuate themselves into my life and decision making as much as possible. In the end, that determination you mentioned above will be the determining factor - which of us has more of it, and just who is willing to push it to the firewall.



I'm talking about real life earth.


I'm not. I'm talking about real-life US, on an interpersonal level. The rest of real-life earth has different ideas. I guess we'll see how those pan out, too, but it really ain't looking good at the moment. These are, at least, interesting times. I can't worry too much over real-life Earth, as I have my own little patch of it to look after. The rest have to look after their own. Not my job to rule their world. I'm just not quite sure what makes them think it's their job to rule mine.



There's a 99.9999999% chance things won't go the way you wish they would.


There is also a very large chance that you don't know which way I wish it would go, which is my fault for not adequately explaining it. You seem to think I would prefer anarchy as a collective system, which mystifies me since I thought I'd already mentioned that is not only an impossibility, it's a logical fallacy.



The other small chance? Is that there's a huge civil war - Which could be a version of progress, but I don't see that happening soon either.


There will be eventually - there always is. Chances are that I won't live to see it, which is just as well since my days of warfare are over. There's a chance that even you won't live to see it, either - it depends on when the Critical Masses decide they've had enough.

just between you and I, I may very well vote for Bernie, because I think that war can't come too soon. the only way to fix this mess at this point is to burn it to the ground and start over, and I have no doubt that Bernie is the man to push it past that edge.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: nenothtu

I guess I believe people should be able to opt out of everything - If they don't want... to use government roads, to use healthcare, they don't want social security - You should be able to opt out of all of it, pay no taxes - but also receive no benefits of society.

I'd be for that.


Somehow, I don't think Bernie IS for that sort of thing, though.

I'm not for NO taxes, however. A government has to be able to run... they just need to cut out all the fat that has grown on it over the years, and get back to doing what governments do - govern. It's built right into the word government, so there should be no confusion. trim it down to the governing bits, and it should be able to operate on a much thinner budget, so fewer taxes would be required.

Make lobbying illegal in all guises and across the board (including such nuisances to freedom as the NRA), limit terms to two per congress critter, cut congressional sessions back to 4 months per year or less, and make 'em work for a living the rest of the year (if they want to work - they can lay out on the river bank for all I care, if they so choose). Eliminate a crapload of useless federal agencies, and ALL federal social programs.

4 months is plenty long enough to pass a ton of Useless Laws for any one year, no? Limit salaries to 4k a month - that ought to be plenty enough for folks who truly give a crap about the good of the nation, rather than enriching themselves. Separate the sheep from the goats that way.

Of course, I'd go a bit farther than that on a purely personal level, but maybe you're getting my drift by now on a collective level.

Probably where we differ the most in in your concept of "the benefit of society" - you seem to be conflating that with "government", whereas I draw a sharp line between the two, seeing government as a mere facet of society - not the end-all, be-all of it.



edit on 2016/2/3 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor


Next time, actually read my posts. You might learn something.

You know what, though?

I have been reading them.
Excuse the hell out of me if I got confused........but please, don't imply that I am ignorant.
Please.

Looking back at the thread history and your posts, I think we might be tied up by semantics here......



edit on 2/3/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

The difference between you and I is more likely my opinion that I don't see your desires happening.. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I just don't see those ideas happening. So I take what's best..

There's a muddy and wet trail that goes to the left.
Theres a dry, rocky and rough terrain to the right.
Straight, there's a jungle, it's easier to walk but there's wildlife that could be harmful.

All paths lead to the place you need to end up.

You are choosing the helicopter that doesn't exist, to get to a destination that also doesn't exist. You're choosing D: none of the above when that option doesn't exist.

It may, to a degree, on a personal level, but I'm talking about the future of America.. Not the future of me.

Just my opinion. I'd also love the helicopter.

( this is assuming each path is a path you would rather not take for various reasons, just for the sake of this post, let's add negative connotations to each path - just like all presidents come with negative aspects.)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

-We once had an assault weapons ban. Many countries do. It would be reinstating it. I think that happened under a republican president.


The assault weapon ban was passed under Clinton, and sunsetted under Bush. As I've said elsewhere, I may be senile, so refresh my memory - was Clinton a Republican?



-what exactly is a union whore? That he supports unions? that is a good thing.


No it isn't. I worked under a union once for a short while (SEIU). I'll never work under another. I will starve on a street corner, tin cup in hand, first. I lived under the little wars the UMWA used to throw every 3 years like clockwork at contract time. It's where I learned my trade, which was not a nice trade at all. Never again.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

In that case, I might choose Sanders. Not because he's "good for America" (which I am convinced he isn't, at least in the short term), but because he''s the man to Bern this baby to the ground, so we could start over again and maybe get it right next time with a bit of hindsight, in the long term.

In all honesty, what I saw of socialism/totalitarianism (the two are indistinguishable when put in practice) was at the end of a barrel when I was younger. Most of those countries have thrown off that yoke now, and seem to be doing a great deal better for having thrown it off.

Maybe it's just our turn to run that cycle.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Hey wants to emulate Sweden.

Why hasn't Sweden crumbled to the ground yet?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

It hasn't? Are you sure? Have you been reading the news out of Sweden lately?

Vietnam and North Korea haven't either - yet. it took Russia 70 years to reach Critical Masses.

Sweden is simmering, near boil. So is Germany, Denmark and a few other places of the same political philosophy. None of them are places I would currently plan a vacation in.

I think Americans may have less patience for shenanigans, but I've been wrong before. I thought Obama's second term might be enough to do it - a case in point where I was wrong.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: nenothtu

Hey wants to emulate Sweden.

Why hasn't Sweden crumbled to the ground yet?


Smaller country, homogeneous culture, smaller economy, lower GDP, different traditions and history...

(I heard today that they are trying to ship out the muslim immigrants starting this year (upwards of 80,000))
edit on 3-2-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join