Sander's Field Organizers Talk About Militancy And Violence Towards Property

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

I didn't attack. I asked you an honest question.

If you don't like it here, why not move there where you claim you do like it?

My comment about them not wanting you is because very often, countries with those types of economies are very strict about their legal immigration. If you do not have the skills they need, then they will not let you in because they have to be very careful in the balancing act of their social systems or else they get overloaded.

Perhaps you've tried to emigrate and were not needed there was what I was saying. If you think that's a personal attack, it says more about what you think of yourself than anything I said about you. Whatever skills you have may not be skills they need, and sometimes, those can be very good skills indeed.

You’re full of sht. It was a dick statement meant to be a dick statement, just like your attempted disparaging psychoanalysis of me in this post. Just be honest and engage in honest debate, don’t be a smug dick slinging sideways insults and acting innocent. And when you do, at least own it and don’t play the victim. My prepubescent kid has more balls and honesty.

.....and you seriously can't figure out why people can't have a civil debate with you? People are so sick of the left and the condescending and arrogant tone that people like yourself like to interject into their post. Such as the "Trumpeteer" comment you made in this thread. Typical lefty hypocrisy that's why ya'll are a pathetic joke to so many.

You do all of this unprovoked on this forum. So please spare us your condescending and hypocritical BS, at the least grow a pair and own it.

Unprovoked? So that person tells me if I don’t like it here, why don’t I move to Norway, which is already a passive aggressive statement, and then points out “oh, maybe they don’t want you!”. And when I responded that person turns it around and casts aspersions that I suffer from feelings of insecurity. Which you know since you obviously already read it. And then you come on here specifically to attack me. So please, fk off.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: pexx421

No matter what, you pay. Either you pay in taxes and the government gives it back or you pay yourself. The only money government has is what they take from us.

Bernie will have to hit the middle class so hard, they will wish they had their insurance back. 40% of the country pays zero in and only takes. The rich don't have enough money to take even if they take it all. Unemployment would skyrocket.

Bernie can't deliver on his promises. It's not possible.

I respect your opinion, and I disagree. We have no negotiating power with big pharma, and the oligarchs individually. We do as a single payer system. Further, if we’re paying through govt, we also don’t have to pay for their bloated profits, bonuses, and advertising costs. Those alone would drop the cost massively. But in addition to that if gov was funding research we would have better control over what we chose to research, rather than “this cholesterol med is about to lose its patent, so let’s spend a billion to make one that’s .1% more effective”. Yknow, like antibiotics to replace all the ones we currently have that will be useless in 10 years.

It’s not about whether we will pay taxes or not. We will. It’s what those taxes will be spent on, and will that spending make us financially healthier in the future. If I don’t have to pay 100k for school, or 20k for health insurance PLUS 5k for various visits and uncovered health costs PLUS 10k for that baby, PLUS 30k for that accident, I’d probably be in a much better position to buy a bunch of crap, which is what makes the economy go round.

As to the rich and middle class, that problem exists because they suppress wages and inflate prices. So of course most of the wealth comes from the wealthy. If they were paying better wages, if 50% of Americans weren’t getting by on less than $20 an hour, then the middle class would be paying more taxes. Instead, we uberize the economy, force wages down, and then the rich cry that they pay the majority of taxes. They’ve taken the majority of the money! That’s how that works. Share the money, share the taxes. Easy enough.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

I didn't attack. I asked you an honest question.

If you don't like it here, why not move there where you claim you do like it?

My comment about them not wanting you is because very often, countries with those types of economies are very strict about their legal immigration. If you do not have the skills they need, then they will not let you in because they have to be very careful in the balancing act of their social systems or else they get overloaded.

Perhaps you've tried to emigrate and were not needed there was what I was saying. If you think that's a personal attack, it says more about what you think of yourself than anything I said about you. Whatever skills you have may not be skills they need, and sometimes, those can be very good skills indeed.

You’re full of sht. It was a dick statement meant to be a dick statement, just like your attempted disparaging psychoanalysis of me in this post. Just be honest and engage in honest debate, don’t be a smug dick slinging sideways insults and acting innocent. And when you do, at least own it and don’t play the victim. My prepubescent kid has more balls and honesty.

.....and you seriously can't figure out why people can't have a civil debate with you? People are so sick of the left and the condescending and arrogant tone that people like yourself like to interject into their post. Such as the "Trumpeteer" comment you made in this thread. Typical lefty hypocrisy that's why ya'll are a pathetic joke to so many.

You do all of this unprovoked on this forum. So please spare us your condescending and hypocritical BS, at the least grow a pair and own it.

And look here. I was having a perfectly civil and enjoyable debate here with pteridine, riftrafter and Blaine. Then you come in spewing vitriol and attacking me with lies and personal attacks. Did I say anything to you? No. THATS unprovoked abuse and aggression. So who here is being intentionally arrogant, antagonistic, and offensive? You and ketsuko and others like you obviously get personal satisfaction from antagonizing people on here and getting a rise out of them simply because they think differently than you. Grow up.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I very much hate to say this, I actually believe I may be making a deal with the devil, but maybe Hillary is right that Bernie Sanders should not be president.

I feel so cheap now, I feel degraded to say that something she said might be the truth.

You think you feel bad think of the Democrats that would be forced to vote for Trump.... lol

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Go ahead and shoot them for taking back the means of production from Jeff on Benzos?

It was never theirs.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Spend less on the military and... voilà!

Will the rest of the world follow?

Lots of jabbering since I last posted. Had to go to a meeting, adult/work stuff.

So the consensus is that government is corrupt and the solution is grant government more power, authority, and increase the size and scope of government.

Oh, and sling insults when anyone question this irrational approach.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Spend less on the military and... voilà!

Will the rest of the world follow?

Who cares if they follow or not? Just drop it by 45%, that still leaves us spending more on it than any other nation. Could probably do that just by cutting down on all the fraud and graft. What was the estimate? 20 trillion? I saw how that works. “Here, sarge. The quarter is ending And we need you to spend the rest of the money so we get more next year. Order whatever you want!”. That was my unit. I am picturing this repeating itself through every section in every unit through the whole nation, and the whole world.

a reply to: pexx421

Our military spending is 3.5% of our GDP.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Sanders biggest liability is that many of his supporters are just plain nuts.

It's going to really bite him in the ass unless he distances himself from them right away.

The average American simply won't vote for a nut - whether or not he's a Dem nut or a GOP nut.

Some Trump voters notwithstanding, of course...

And yet he’s the most popular US representative period. He’s the candidate with the largest amount of popular support in this election and last. He’s the candidate who has had the most donations by far. All this flies in the face of your statement.

No, it doesn't.

Just because he's the front runner doesn't mean some of his supporters aren't lunatics.

They are *not* mutually exclusive.

BTW - I like Bernie. I would have voted for him in the last Presidential election if Hillary didn't steal the nomination at the DNC convention. That was a f#cking joke - and made me abandon the democratic party for allowing it to happen.

I am now a steadfast Independent like many of my friends and colleagues. Screw with us at your peril if you're a politician...

a reply to: pexx421

Grow up.

Well said!

Bravo!

a reply to: Blaine91555

Sanders pegs the price tag for his plan at $1.38 trillion per year during the first 10 years. This is based on an analysis by Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

How expensive would a single-payer system be?

Americans spent $3.65 trillion on health care in 2018

America's health care economy keeps ballooning

Err... math. I hate math, but the second number is higher. High AF, actually.

Wait! You can triple your military budget and still wont lose a dime?!? My bad. I shouldn't mention this, or should I? None of this? Ok, you didn't see that!

a reply to: projectvxn

It’s also a trillion dollars, and one third the federal budget.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: pexx421

Grow up.

Well said!

Bravo!

Hey, I’m tryin to be civil.

a reply to: pexx421

But I want to take a look at the logical dichotomy I think many labor under. We were told we needed to bail out the banks and do qe. What did they do with it? They bought up other failing banks, and washed the junk bonds from their fraud and bad bets, and destroyed the worlds economy in the process. Because they had to have the money. They were too big to fail. Where was “where will we get the money?!” Then?

That was a debacle and a tragedy.

I still think we should have let more of them fail. Not all - but more than we did.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: pexx421

Grow up.

Well said!

Bravo!

Hey, I’m tryin to be civil.

Ha!

a reply to: Riffrafter

That's part of the problem with "safety nets".

There is no risk, no cost to failure.

Because if there were a risk a cost to failure, people would be more careful.

But if the government is always going to bail you out if you fail, then you go ahead with ridiculous concepts and plans because there is never any risk involved.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Riffrafter

That's part of the problem with "safety nets".

There is no risk, no cost to failure.

Because if there were a risk a cost to failure, people would be more careful.

But if the government is always going to bail you out if you fail, then you go ahead with ridiculous concepts and plans because there is never any risk involved.

Ipso facto - they absolutely did.

And we paid for it.

Like always.

Pisses me off...

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Blaine91555

No need to bankrupt the country to give us better health care and his plans can't be paid for.

Spend less on the military and... voilà!

Oh the horror!
You could hear the audible gasps at that suggestion.
The MIC would freak. Republicans would freak. Daring to cut back on all those bombs and such. The merchants of death don’t like peace. War is big business. Gotta manufacture more bombs & missiles; gotta manufacture enemies to drop ‘em on. (Or sell them to our client states in the ME so they can do it for us.)

“Defense” spending is a sacred cow.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Lots of jabbering since I last posted. Had to go to a meeting, adult/work stuff.

So the consensus is that government is corrupt and the solution is grant government more power, authority, and increase the size and scope of government.

Oh, and sling insults when anyone question this irrational approach.

It always is because government is never corrupt because government people are corrupt people. Government is only corrupt because other people in other institutions outside government force them to be.

So I guess if you get rid of those institutions, then government will cease to be corrupt ... until it still is, and then they'll look for the next group to blame and purge them. It's their fault ... not government's because government would *never* be corrupt, especially not a perfectly socialist one.

We just don't understand it. We're too dumb. You saw Don Lemon, right? We can't read. We can't read maps, and we certainly don't get maths. I mean ... you do know that 2+2 = whatever you want so long as you show your process.