The plot to marginalize Bernie Sanders: The shared agenda that links Fox News and Hillary Clinton su

[TBoneJack]

you did.

Proof, please.

 

[UncleBuck]

Proof, please.

i've already proved it by stating it to be fact (because it is).

now the burden is on you to prove that what i am saying is false.

this is how logic works according to you.

 

[TBoneJack]

i've already proved it by stating it to be fact (because it is).

now the burden is on you to prove that what i am saying is false.

this is how logic works according to you.

No sir. It's your accusation, so the burden of proof is on you. And good luck with that.

 

[UncleBuck]

No sir. It's your accusation, so the burden of proof is on you. And good luck with that.

i'm just using the logic that you established as valid when you claimed you were in kansas city.

you said you were in kansas city, i said you weren't, you said the burden of proof was on me to prove you weren't.

same thing here. the burden of proof is on you to prove you were not a member of the white power group (which you were a member of).

 

[TBoneJack]

i'm just using the logic that you established as valid when you claimed you were in kansas city.

you said you were in kansas city, i said you weren't, you said the burden of proof was on me to prove you weren't.

same thing here. the burden of proof is on you to prove you were not a member of the white power group (which you were a member of).

The burden of proof is upon the accuser. Which was you in both cases.

 

[UncleBuck]

The burden of proof is upon the accuser.

not according to you.

are you upset that your 8 sock puppet accounts all got discovered by me?

 

[TBoneJack]

not according to you.

are you upset that your 8 sock puppet accounts all got discovered by me?

Prove it.

So Buck, how long does it take you each day upon awakening at 11:00AM to get all your laptop IP spoofers logged into your various character accounts here?

 

[UncleBuck]

Prove it.

So Buck, how long does it take you each day upon awakening at 11:00AM to get all your laptop IP spoofers logged into your various character accounts here?

you're the one with 9 sock puppets, not me.

 

[UncleBuck]

Prove it.

already have.

 

[Fogdog]

Corporations have been considered "people" since the founding of the country. This is not something invented by John Roberts and George W Bush during one of their many week long benders.

Nobody said speech = money, the ruling simply says you have a right to spend your money to promote your political ideas. If your ideas suck, no amount of money is going to make them palatable, and if you have great ideas a little bit of money to expose them to the public is enough.

Eric Cantor is a perfect example of lots of money poorly spent.

Fogdog, your explanation of socialism alienated me when it said "private property" is a bad idea. That is exactly what is wrong with socialism. It creates an incentive to be lazy: what is the point of busting your ass if you get nothing for it? Taken to the logical conclusion socialism leads to communism. No thanks.

Desert dude: Fogdog, your explanation of socialism alienated me when it said "private property" is a bad idea

Reply: Like I said, in my earlier posting, the passage was from Wikipedia. I copied the part where it talks about concerns of the effects of property rights in the 18th century. I'm sorry it hurt your feelings. Back then there were a lot of issues with people losing rights to use land like grazing or farming that had been in effect in England for a long time and the landed gentry revoked the rights, putting whole families into extreme hardship. It was a long time ago and I'm sure you don't care. Not sure why you are hurt by this. It didn't have any thing to do with what you said afterward.

Desert Dude: Corporations have been considered "people" since the founding of the country

Reply: Cmon dude. Corporations aren't people, no matter what the lawyers say. They don't die, fuck, crap or eat, nor do they think. They don't have children to care for. They aren't a "they", they are a legal construct. Ascribing a person's rights to them was a way for the olden day courts to push the matter under the rug. Back then, corporations weren't nearly as powerful as they are today. If you think that because a court of 1820 ruled a certain way, we must follow the precedent, you have the imagination of a termite. Don't right wingers have some sort of central concept around the idea that laws should make sense and if they don't make sense the law is invalid? Well, this doesn't make any sense. And following the status quo is causing all sorts of problems in our society. It's dumb and other countries think so too. This isn't exactly a universal truth.

Desert Dunce: Taken to the logical conclusion socialism leads to communism. No thanks

Reply: Uhh, OK. So lets do like Denmark then and not take it to the illogical conclusion of communism.

 

[bravedave]

Desert dude: Fogdog, your explanation of socialism alienated me when it said "private property" is a bad idea

Reply: Like I said, in my earlier posting, the passage was from Wikipedia. I copied the part where it talks about concerns of the effects of property rights in the 18th century. I'm sorry it hurt your feelings. Back then there were a lot of issues with people losing rights to use land like grazing or farming that had been in effect in England for a long time and the landed gentry revoked the rights, putting whole families into extreme hardship. It was a long time ago and I'm sure you don't care. Not sure why you are hurt by this. It didn't have any thing to do with what you said afterward.

Desert Dude: Corporations have been considered "people" since the founding of the country

Reply: Cmon dude. Corporations aren't people, no matter what the lawyers say. They don't die, fuck, crap or eat, nor do they think.. They don't have children to care for. They aren't a "they", they are a legal construct. Ascribing a person's rights to them was a way for the olden day courts to push the matter under the rug. Back then, corporations weren't nearly as powerful as they are today. if you think that because a court of 1820 ruled a certain way, we must follow the precedent, you have the imagination of a termite Don't right wingers have some sort of central concept around the idea that laws should make sense and if they don't make sense the law is invalid? Well, this doesn't make any sense. And following the status quo is causing all sorts of problems in our society. It's dumb and other countries think so too. This isn't exactly a universal truth.

Desert Dunce: Taken to the logical conclusion socialism leads to communism. No thanks

Reply: Uhh, OK. So lets do like Denmark then and not take it to the illogical conclusion of communism.

Can we take Greece instead? Denmark has not reached their conclusion yet.

And speaking of, the Greeks have been electing grey-haired socialists for quite some time. I guess I thought the alienation of Bernie was because of the failure of that ilk...not a conspiracy to ignore an old man with old, tried and failed, ideas. I was something close to a socialist too, but like Bono, I started to recognize reality. Here is something to get you started:

 

[schuylaar]

"Money is protected free speech" and Companies are people. Two rulings that were designed to chip away at the power of the electorate. I'm sure the supremos knew exactly what they were doing when the ruled that way. Its called pay back for the cushy job.

The Raygun and Bush I appointees will affect us for a long time. I don't know if the power of the oligarchy of the ultra rich will be broken. If it's going to happen it needs to happen soon.

The politics of the Bush II machine was awful. Even some in the republican party disdained it. Its not over either. The core Democratic party isn't any better in this regard though.

they're old white men..almost..and soon to die..i can look at their pics and tell you which i think is gonna kick first.

i'm pretty good at predictions

 

[ttystikk]

Political machines may believe this is too complicated for us or maybe they really don't want the kind of reforms that Sanders is proposing, maybe both are true. I think Sanders gives us more credit than that. Which is why he's an effective challenger to Ms Clinton.

THIS.

The Powers That Be are terrified of Bernie Sanders! If he wins, then it's proof that the American people CAN influence their government- and no amount of slimy propaganda will ever convince them otherwise! The monied right wing elite, the Kochs, Adelson and more, want to smear him with nasty labels until one sticks. Smear campaigns are easy because they always attack the other guy, and your own miserable record isn't up for debate.

 

[Rob Roy]

If the ability to opt out of a government program on a voluntary basis isn't present, why does it matter what the form of tyranny is called?

Forced collectivization and "automatic inclusion" in somebody else idea with or without your consent provides self evidence that the action is ultimately backed by a threat and a gun.

Any plan somebody makes for me that includes my inability to refuse it...sounds like a mafia tactic to me.

"I'm a gonna make a you an offah you cannot refuse" is the business model of both gangsters and government. Anybody care to stay on topic and refute that?

 

[desert dude]

Desert dude: Fogdog, your explanation of socialism alienated me when it said "private property" is a bad idea

Reply: Like I said, in my earlier posting, the passage was from Wikipedia. I copied the part where it talks about concerns of the effects of property rights in the 18th century. I'm sorry it hurt your feelings. Back then there were a lot of issues with people losing rights to use land like grazing or farming that had been in effect in England for a long time and the landed gentry revoked the rights, putting whole families into extreme hardship. It was a long time ago and I'm sure you don't care. Not sure why you are hurt by this. It didn't have any thing to do with what you said afterward.

Desert Dude: Corporations have been considered "people" since the founding of the country

Reply: Cmon dude. Corporations aren't people, no matter what the lawyers say. They don't die, fuck, crap or eat, nor do they think.. They don't have children to care for. They aren't a "they", they are a legal construct. Ascribing a person's rights to them was a way for the olden day courts to push the matter under the rug. Back then, corporations weren't nearly as powerful as they are today. if you think that because a court of 1820 ruled a certain way, we must follow the precedent, you have the imagination of a termite Don't right wingers have some sort of central concept around the idea that laws should make sense and if they don't make sense the law is invalid? Well, this doesn't make any sense. And following the status quo is causing all sorts of problems in our society. It's dumb and other countries think so too. This isn't exactly a universal truth.

Desert Dunce: Taken to the logical conclusion socialism leads to communism. No thanks

Reply: Uhh, OK. So lets do like Denmark then and not take it to the illogical conclusion of communism.

Why not do like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela? No thanks.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why not do like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela? No thanks.

legit rebuttal.

 

[Fogdog]

Can we take Greece instead? Denmark has not reached their conclusion yet.

And speaking of, the Greeks have been electing grey-haired socialists for quite some time. I guess I thought the alienation of Bernie was because of the failure of that ilk...not a conspiracy to ignore an old man with old, tried and failed, ideas. I was something close to a socialist too, but like Bono, I started to recognize reality. Here is something to get you started:

Why not do like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela? No thanks.

Communism is totalitarian rule by a central government headed by a small oligarchy and led by a single tyrant. If you want to take things to a "logical conclusion", how about this one: In the US, the status quo is headed towards -- if it hasn't already happened -- rule by an oligarchy of utra-rich with an almost complete control of the political process, financial system, capital, judicial process and so forth. Everybody else will be at the whim of this small group, basically one class of working poor. In other words, a system that looks more like communism than capitalism. Use modern day China as an example of what this looks like.

You and I choose democracy over monarchy, dictatorship and rule by a small oligarchy don't we? If so, then communism is out of the question. So too is rule by oligarchy. The only question remaining is what do we do about it. The genesis of the tea party before it was corrupted with Koch money and other extreme right wing groups also recognize the path we are on and are also putting forth their ideas. So great, assuming you don't support the status quo, let the best ideas win in the democratic process.

Regarding what I'm guessing you thought was a brilliant point about Greece and Venezuela, my reply is "so what?". What I keep hearing from the conservative echo chamber is that there is no better system than the status quo. I'm just pointing out that there are other systems that are working quite well. Why would you say that Denmark is headed towards a Greece-like fall? Compared to the US, which has a gross government debt-to-GDP ratio of 106%, Denmark's gross government debt-to-GDP ratio is 50%. The trends for both countries is towards lower debt, but I'd prefer 50% to 100%, wouldn't you? Just saying that its time to get your head out of the echo chamber-bucket and start looking for alternatives rather than listening to old men yelling lies at the public via radio or FOX which are paid for by the oligarchy .

Go Bernie

 

[desert dude]

Communism is totalitarian rule by a central government headed by a small oligarchy and led by a single tyrant. If you want to take things to a "logical conclusion", how about this one: In the US, the status quo is headed towards -- if it hasn't already happened -- rule by an oligarchy of utra-rich with an almost complete control of the political process, financial system, capital, judicial process and so forth. Everybody else will be at the whim of this small group, basically one class of working poor. In other words, a system that looks more like communism than capitalism. Use modern day China as an example of what this looks like.

You and I choose democracy over monarchy, dictatorship and rule by a small oligarchy don't we? If so, then communism is out of the question. So too is rule by oligarchy. The only question remaining is what do we do about it. The genesis of the tea party before it was corrupted with Koch money and other extreme right wing groups also recognize the path we are on and are also putting forth their ideas. So great, assuming you don't support the status quo, let the best ideas win in the democratic process.

Regarding what I'm guessing you thought was a brilliant point about Greece and Venezuela, my reply is "so what?". What I keep hearing from the conservative echo chamber is that there is no better system than the one we have. I'm just pointing out that there are other systems that are working quite well. Why would you say that Denmark is headed towards a Greece-like fall? Compared to the US, which has a gross government debt-to-GDP 106%, Denmark's GDP-to-Debt ratio is 50%. The trends for both countries is towards lower debt, but I'd prefer 50% to 100%, wouldn't you? Just saying that its time to get your head out of the echo chamber-bucket and start looking for alternatives rather than listening to old men yelling lies at the public via radio or FOX which are paid for by the oligarchy .

Go Bernie

A rational post, with little name-calling. I like it!

The Danes fund their welfare state with oil. Why are the Danes able to pull this off, and the Venezuelans not? Venezuela has lots of natural resources as well.

You seem to admire the northern European style of socialism and disdain the Latin American style.

The poor Greeks are not sitting on lots of oil, so they are just out of luck.

What do you think will happen to the Danes given the recent plunge in oil prices precipitated by capitalist innovations? What will happen to the Danes when the 3X10^6 daily barrels of Iranian oil suddenly come on the open market?

 

[schuylaar]

Corporations have been considered "people" since the founding of the country. This is not something invented by John Roberts and George W Bush during one of their many week long benders.

Nobody said speech = money, the ruling simply says you have a right to spend your money to promote your political ideas. If your ideas suck, no amount of money is going to make them palatable, and if you have great ideas a little bit of money to expose them to the public is enough.

Eric Cantor is a perfect example of lots of money poorly spent.

Fogdog, your explanation of socialism alienated me when it said "private property" is a bad idea. That is exactly what is wrong with socialism. It creates an incentive to be lazy: what is the point of busting your ass if you get nothing for it? Taken to the logical conclusion socialism leads to communism. No thanks.

fail.

when you have an endless supply of money (which the billionaires do) you can intimate falsehoods and perpetuate those lies to as far as losing the electorate through smear or 'whisper' kinda like: tom schweck (R) who committed suicide.

But should the leader of the world be a forever-recovering drug addict? I don't think so.

i totally agree:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/11/bush.alcohol/

 

[schuylaar]

Why not?

actually ann made the point of 'recovered' alcholic and one of her MOST famous quotes gave us:

I believe in recovery, and I believe that as a role model I have the responsibility to let young people know that you can make a mistake and come back from it.
~ann richards