New Hampshire and Bernie wins...feel the burn America..down to the ground

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
*laughs in social-democratic*

Yeah, who would want free healthcare, the rich paying taxes or social safety nets! Those are un-american!


Just so you know. Watchin' ya.

There's no such thing as "free" anything.

How failed is our education system that their are apparently millions that don't get that?

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
*laughs in social-democratic*

Yeah, who would want free healthcare, the rich paying taxes or social safety nets! Those are un-american!


Just so you know. Watchin' ya.

There's no such thing as "free" anything.

How failed is our education system that their are apparently millions that don't get that?

Free is when you get more than you give.
Eventually you don't bother to give at all.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: pexx421

I would like to point out that most of those people who cannot afford a car have smartphones, tablets, WiFi, streaming television services.....etc.

People in the 60s also tended to be married and only had kids they could afford.

You remember the 70s differently than I do.

In the 60’s and 70’s a single working parent could often afford all the requirements and standards of a middle class home and lifestyle at the time with less debt and more stability than they can now.

Also didn't have cable TV and cell phones. One car was adequate. Didn't need to have the latest and greated paid for with a 7 year car loan. Everyone didn't need Gucci belts and Canada Goose jackets. People cooked food instead of buyign ready to eat meals. They also didn't care if the food was grown by eunich elves under a rainbow either. People didn't want 3500 square foot McMansions with Home depot siding either.

We had cool new tech to buy back then too. I recall when vcrs came out. They were $800 I believe, and everyone got one. I expect $800 back then was probably about the equivalent of $2k+ in today’s dollars. And microwaves, everyone got one of those and they weren’t cheap either. I’ll explain the point since most of you seem so slow to grasp conclusions when they don’t support your narrative. We had the cool new tech, the hot new cars, the fine new houses to buy back then too. And they were all in the grasp of the poor and middle class, and obtainable without going into the massive level of debt that we have today. Expensive shoes? We had expensive shoes back then too. People used to jump other folks for them. We had polo and girbauds. There were all the various forms of consumption that we enjoy today, and we managed it better. Because we had more disposable income.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
*laughs in social-democratic*

Yeah, who would want free healthcare, the rich paying taxes or social safety nets! Those are un-american!


Just so you know. Watchin' ya.

There's no such thing as "free" anything.

How failed is our education system that their are apparently millions that don't get that?

Here’s the problem. Everyone knows it’s not free. People are willing to pay more taxes in exchange for education and healthcare. Why is this so hard for you to get? As sanders said, “we already have socialism. That’s the tax breaks and the subsidies that trump personally enjoys. We just think socialism should benefit the working class and poor, rather than the wealthy elite”. It’s not about “free stuff”. It’s about who gets to benefit from the taxes we pay.

a reply to: pexx421

In the 60’s and 70’s a single working parent could often afford all the requirements and standards of a middle class home and lifestyle at the time with less debt and more stability than they can now.

I'm doing it right now, wife, 2 kids, 1 on the way, 1500 sqft apt, 5 acres of land in the woods, 1 new car. zero debt

everyone just wants their cake and eat it too.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: pexx421

I would like to point out that most of those people who cannot afford a car have smartphones, tablets, WiFi, streaming television services.....etc.

People in the 60s also tended to be married and only had kids they could afford.

You remember the 70s differently than I do.

In the 60’s and 70’s a single working parent could often afford all the requirements and standards of a middle class home and lifestyle at the time with less debt and more stability than they can now.

Also didn't have cable TV and cell phones. One car was adequate. Didn't need to have the latest and greated paid for with a 7 year car loan. Everyone didn't need Gucci belts and Canada Goose jackets. People cooked food instead of buyign ready to eat meals. They also didn't care if the food was grown by eunich elves under a rainbow either. People didn't want 3500 square foot McMansions with Home depot siding either.

We had cool new tech to buy back then too. I recall when vcrs came out. They were $800 I believe, and everyone got one. I expect $800 back then was probably about the equivalent of $2k+ in today’s dollars. And microwaves, everyone got one of those and they weren’t cheap either. I’ll explain the point since most of you seem so slow to grasp conclusions when they don’t support your narrative. We had the cool new tech, the hot new cars, the fine new houses to buy back then too. And they were all in the grasp of the poor and middle class, and obtainable without going into the massive level of debt that we have today. Expensive shoes? We had expensive shoes back then too. People used to jump other folks for them. We had polo and girbauds. There were all the various forms of consumption that we enjoy today, and we managed it better. Because we had more disposable income.

You just disproved your own point. Good lord.

Yeah, we had cool tech back then and the only people that really had it were in fact rich. Compared to today when EVERYBODY has that same tech at much cheaper costs.

Who is paying $2000 for a DVD player today? No one. You can get a DVD player for like $50. So proving that a lot of this stuff is in fact cheaper and more accessible? Further, that $50 DVD player is far better than the $800 VHS recorder...

Computers, TV, Cell phones, Game systems, etc are all far cheaper today and nice than they were in the 70s/80s.

The items you mention.... school, healthcare, and houses are all highly regulated under government which is why they have far exceeded inflation in many instances. Again, disproving your leftist ideology.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: pexx421

I would like to point out that most of those people who cannot afford a car have smartphones, tablets, WiFi, streaming television services.....etc.

People in the 60s also tended to be married and only had kids they could afford.

You remember the 70s differently than I do.

In the 60’s and 70’s a single working parent could often afford all the requirements and standards of a middle class home and lifestyle at the time with less debt and more stability than they can now.

Also didn't have cable TV and cell phones. One car was adequate. Didn't need to have the latest and greated paid for with a 7 year car loan. Everyone didn't need Gucci belts and Canada Goose jackets. People cooked food instead of buyign ready to eat meals. They also didn't care if the food was grown by eunich elves under a rainbow either. People didn't want 3500 square foot McMansions with Home depot siding either.

We had cool new tech to buy back then too. I recall when vcrs came out. They were $800 I believe, and everyone got one. I expect $800 back then was probably about the equivalent of $2k+ in today’s dollars. And microwaves, everyone got one of those and they weren’t cheap either. I’ll explain the point since most of you seem so slow to grasp conclusions when they don’t support your narrative. We had the cool new tech, the hot new cars, the fine new houses to buy back then too. And they were all in the grasp of the poor and middle class, and obtainable without going into the massive level of debt that we have today. Expensive shoes? We had expensive shoes back then too. People used to jump other folks for them. We had polo and girbauds. There were all the various forms of consumption that we enjoy today, and we managed it better. Because we had more disposable income.

You just disproved your own point. Good lord.

Yeah, we had cool tech back then and the only people that really had it were in fact rich. Compared to today when EVERYBODY has that same tech at much cheaper costs.

Who is paying $2000 for a DVD player today? No one. You can get a DVD player for like $50. So proving that a lot of this stuff is in fact cheaper and more accessible? Further, that $50 DVD player is far better than the $800 VHS recorder...

Computers, TV, Cell phones, Game systems, etc are all far cheaper today and nice than they were in the 70s/80s.

The items you mention.... school, healthcare, and houses are all highly regulated under government which is why they have far exceeded inflation in many instances. Again, disproving your leftist ideology.

Only because you See conversation as a competition to win, rather than a discussion to develop understanding. Your specific and constant attempts to interpret a persons statements in the worst possible fashion is the opposite of how genuine honest discourse happens. We all had vcrs and microwaves etc back then, not just the rich. And the point about their current cheapness validates my point, that production costs have gone down on tech, and yet high prices are the norm. The production cost on an iPhone or iPad is what? Compared to the msrp? The production cost on those $400 shoes is what? $10?

Don’t be a dick. People are not all idiots, and you idiot just as hard and often as everyone else. You have an addiction to your own ideology, and plenty catchy memes and descriptions to support it. That doesn’t mean it’s not all make believe.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: pexx421

I would like to point out that most of those people who cannot afford a car have smartphones, tablets, WiFi, streaming television services.....etc.

People in the 60s also tended to be married and only had kids they could afford.

You remember the 70s differently than I do.

In the 60’s and 70’s a single working parent could often afford all the requirements and standards of a middle class home and lifestyle at the time with less debt and more stability than they can now.

Also didn't have cable TV and cell phones. One car was adequate. Didn't need to have the latest and greated paid for with a 7 year car loan. Everyone didn't need Gucci belts and Canada Goose jackets. People cooked food instead of buyign ready to eat meals. They also didn't care if the food was grown by eunich elves under a rainbow either. People didn't want 3500 square foot McMansions with Home depot siding either.

We had cool new tech to buy back then too. I recall when vcrs came out. They were $800 I believe, and everyone got one. I expect $800 back then was probably about the equivalent of $2k+ in today’s dollars. And microwaves, everyone got one of those and they weren’t cheap either. I’ll explain the point since most of you seem so slow to grasp conclusions when they don’t support your narrative. We had the cool new tech, the hot new cars, the fine new houses to buy back then too. And they were all in the grasp of the poor and middle class, and obtainable without going into the massive level of debt that we have today. Expensive shoes? We had expensive shoes back then too. People used to jump other folks for them. We had polo and girbauds. There were all the various forms of consumption that we enjoy today, and we managed it better. Because we had more disposable income.

You just disproved your own point. Good lord.

Yeah, we had cool tech back then and the only people that really had it were in fact rich. Compared to today when EVERYBODY has that same tech at much cheaper costs.

Who is paying $2000 for a DVD player today? No one. You can get a DVD player for like $50. So proving that a lot of this stuff is in fact cheaper and more accessible? Further, that $50 DVD player is far better than the $800 VHS recorder...

Computers, TV, Cell phones, Game systems, etc are all far cheaper today and nice than they were in the 70s/80s.

The items you mention.... school, healthcare, and houses are all highly regulated under government which is why they have far exceeded inflation in many instances. Again, disproving your leftist ideology.

Only because you See conversation as a competition to win, rather than a discussion to develop understanding. Your specific and constant attempts to interpret a persons statements in the worst possible fashion is the opposite of how genuine honest discourse happens. We all had vcrs and microwaves etc back then, not just the rich. And the point about their current cheapness validates my point, that production costs have gone down on tech, and yet high prices are the norm. The production cost on an iPhone or iPad is what? Compared to the msrp? The production cost on those $400 shoes is what? $10?

Don’t be a dick. People are not all idiots, and you idiot just as hard and often as everyone else. You have an addiction to your own ideology, and plenty catchy memes and descriptions to support it. That doesn’t mean it’s not all make believe.

When you are in a hole, you stop digging....

I'm old enough to remember when microwaves were a new thing and expensive. The same with cable TV. Beepers. Cell Phones.

Tech improves and gets cheaper... you are disproving your own point (again). High prices are not the norm. Phenomenal tech has never been cheaper.

a reply to: 727Sky
If he did happen to get elected, he would most certainly be a do nothing president. Both parties hate him and if this current House of Reps is any indication, he has 0 chance of getting any enactments through Congress. And he will be shot down every time any issue he tries to force through the Supreme Court comes up.

But then again, THIS House of Reps would push his agenda just for pure spite. They wouldn't care if Sanders took the nation down to 3rd world status.

a reply to: 727Sky

all i wanna see is trump vs bernie, let the masses decide. The two populist candidates.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

It's ignorant to think it would just be the rich paying taxes for free (government controlled) healthcare, free college, etc. Do you like it when the money you worked hard for is ripped out of your hands and given to couch sitters who refuse to work and better their lives?

a reply to: dfnj2015

How are billionaires raping us? If it weren't for billionaire and millionaire companies, we wouldn't have jobs or make money to support ourselves or our families. They earned their way, it's our job to earn ours.

What I feel is the craziest is that Bernie Sanders is NOT a registered Democrat but filed as one for POTUS but as an independent already for 2024 for Senate.

So if that is the case, how can he be put on Democratic ballots? How does he get funding if he is not a DNC member? There were rule changes made that stated if you intend to run for POTUS as a DNC candidate you have to pledge to the DNC your loyalty.

This would mean, come convention time, if they wanted to, they could take it all away from Bernie once again citing that he is not totally 'in-line' with the DNC talking points.

His supporters are very very loyal and they will not follow another DNC candidate.

Just food for thought because they stole it in 2016 so there is no reason to think they will not take it again.

originally posted by: Atsbhct

originally posted by: neo96
Bernie Sanders is the American equivalent to Stalin or Mao.

You think Bernie Sanders wants to murder millions of Americans?

Not at the moment, but that is where his ideology eventually takes him should he ever wield real power.

a reply to: LSU2018

Since 1980 the wages for the wealthy have exploded while middle and lower class income has stagnated. They're exploiting their labor to line their own pockets while giving nothing back to the people that actually earned them that money.

But go ahead, be a good little bootlicker and praise your master for giving you crumbs while you provide him with a feast.

a reply to: UKTruth

His "ideology" is essentially promoting what's been in place in the UK for decades. Tell me, how many Prime Ministers have you had that have headed up mass purgings of the herd?

a reply to: 727Sky

Eventually you run out of other peoples money. Bernie himself said the middle income people are going to pay more in taxes.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: 727Sky

a chance to tax and spend us into oblivion.

Fear and Loathing in New Hemp_shire, brought to you by Foxy News. Well. Have another toke?

Rupert Murdoch’s Son James Blasts ‘Ongoing Denial’ Of Climate Change At News Corp, Fox News

But... but... but... the taxes, THE TAXES!
OBLIVION, I SAY!!!oneoneeleven

Oh because Fox news actually took the time to broadcast his speech for all to see and listen to, they are some how the villain ? Did they write his acceptance speech or what in your opinion makes them the villain ? Does it matter that even MSN broadcast his celebratory speech for all to see ?

People join a movement (mob) because they don't listen or think for themselves....or.... they believe in the mobs message... I hope Bernie is the democratic nominee ...should be one of the biggest landslide wins in American history... I will let you figure out who will win..

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
Eventually you run out of other peoples money.

Is this true or just a catchy phrase that some get feels from?

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: 727Sky

Eventually you run out of other peoples money. Bernie himself said the middle income people are going to pay more in taxes.

The middle income people in France pay taxes and get healthcare and education. Same for most of Europe. Canada. Australia. Are they begging to get a system like the US? Are they angry their tax dollars are going to their education, healthcare, and social safety nets?

I’m middle class. I’m perfectly fine with them taxing me more so that people can get an education, or Survive illness or injury. Not sure why status quo supporters are fine with giving away our money for free, to industries like oil and pharma who we will never see a return from.