Here's Why so Many People Like Bernie

a reply to: amazing

And here is where every damn Progressive on this site gets to shut their collective mouth and never respond.

I have never stated welfare to companies is okay. And, I am not for invading countries like Iraq, but for different reasons than most.


SO....here it is. Now what say you.

a reply to: kaylaluv

And what firearms is that? That are only used to "kill people"?

For a group of people that claim to be enlighten, you sure are a mass of ignorance.

a reply to: macman

Yes, firearms are used to "kill people."

The primary roles of a a firearm are:

Killing people.
Protecting people (by the threat of killing people.)
Protecting people (by killing things.)
Destroying non-living objects (by causing damage to them. That would kill it if it were living.)
Putting food on the table (by killing things.)

So, while it is not always bad, guns exist and only exist for the sake of causing destruction and death.

a reply to: macman

Let's talk about his desire to reenact the glass steagall act.

a reply to: macman

Why are you using progressive as an insult?
Like, seriously?
At least use "liberal" or something.

Progress is, literally by definition, a good thing.
It's like saying "those damn nice people."
"Those damn kind people."
"Those damn generous people."
"Those damn selfless people."

a reply to: deadlyhope

And tuition-free college, which, as I pointed out earlier, is actually a very conservative ideal.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

So I ask again, what firearms is Bern-out talking of?

A firearms is not designed to kill people. It is designed to expel a round. Plain and simple.


OH....and that Pesky 2nd Amendment thing is kind of a hindrance, should one actually wish to abide by it.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Hey, if you want to embrace the "Progressive" label, by all means. At least everyone knows exactly what you are.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: amazing

And here is where every damn Progressive on this site gets to shut their collective mouth and never respond.

I have never stated welfare to companies is okay. And, I am not for invading countries like Iraq, but for different reasons than most.


SO....here it is. Now what say you.

I still say, what's wrong with sanders? You keep saying you don't want anyone taking away your freedoms and taking more of your money and that you should have a say where your money goes.

I get that and I feel the same way, I don't want my money going to Iraq and Syria and Haliburton and Israel and Shell and Exxon Mobile and Nevada power and the Koch Brothers etc. I'd like some of it going to education and healthcare and taking care of our citizens.

To me, that's what Sanders wants too.

a reply to: deadlyhope

So, restricting Commercial Banks from doing business in a manner they see fit is all well and good.

So much for capitalism and a free market.

Any chance he is for something that is an actual danger like abolishing the Federal Reserve?

a reply to: amazing

But he wants to increase taxes, provide more and more social programs and restrict rights.


Yeah, there is a problem right there.

a reply to: macman

What? Are you actually saying that abolishing the Fed is a bad thing, or am I just misunderstanding?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Is he for this or not? I am asking a Bernie supporter.

a reply to: macman

I think he's for auditing it at the very least. His message has been primarily centered around wall street and banks such as Goldmann Sachs. I don't think he's suggested something as extreme as abolishing it, but the Fed is a large issue. (In my opinion.)

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Sooo, go after the commercial entities that make issues. As opposed to the Govt departments that create the issues.

a reply to: macman

They don't call them "assault weapons" for nothing. You know those weapons that can kill a large number of people really quickly?

a reply to: kaylaluv
And the ignorance continues.

So, that is how you define "assault weapons", is if they can kill a large number of people quickly.

And here I thought that being able to fire rounds faster, was dependent upon my fingers ability to move back and forth.

So, which of these pictures is an "assault weapon"?

Example A

Or example B

a reply to: macman

If you need a forward grip for dear hunting you're a really f*cking bad shot. O_O
It makes the weapon ugly too, blech.

The biggest issue we have is that "assault weapon" is a sort of made-up category. I'd personally consider it anything fully automatic/burst fire or semi-auto with more than a 15 round mag. However, it differs by person. Besides, the biggest killers of humans as far as I'm aware are handguns. As much as I agree with Bernie on many, many issues, banning "assault weapons" is pretty pointless when it comes to meaningfully impacting the death count.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



Where in the hell does Deer hunting come into play, regarding the 2nd?

a reply to: macman

So, you admit then, that the primary purpose for the possession of guns under the second amendment is to kill people?