Just curious if anyone else watched and who you thought did best and who spreader the most fertilizer?
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
I guess since fertilizer helps things grow, the winner would be the one that spread the most?
Some times that true but, apply the wrong fertilizer, too much or too little and the results will be obvious and I don't mean in a good way.
This debate reminds me of a process a local cattle fattening (feed lot) facility had. About once a month, they would clean out their fattening pens and pay some farmer to dump the feces on his land. Some farmers did it, everyone that did lost crops for several years afterward. Way to much crap and not enough rain.
Interesting that Hillary was late getting back from the first break. I've got a feeling that was intentional. No, I have no data to back that up, just a gut feeling.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Bernie's brand - has that real deal aroma to it. It's like the worse product on the market, but the salesman's confidence and conviction in is devoted to the sh*t he's selling.
Hillary's brand - has that late night infomercial spokesperson appeal. Someone who will go that extra mile for the sell. It's doesn't matter if the sh*t she's selling is good or bad, it's what she gets for spreading it.
I didn't watch it but I'm willing to bet it went like this,
Republicans are a hate group, NRA is a bunch of terrorists, Berie probably sniped in something about Americas 1 percent, Gun control, gun control, gun control, Hillary and her Emails, More gun control, And somewhere in the mix Donald trumps name was dropped.
Didn't care for Hillary. Again, Still. I like Bernie and Martin, all by myself here.
Not alone, Bernie seems to be the best of the bunch. He seems to be the only one that understands that if we have no middle class, we have no economy. And the middle class American is an endangered species headed fast to extinction.
If, those three were my only choice, I would have to pick Martin as most qualified and level headed although that is a huge stretch of my imagination. Sanders did score some points against Clinton IMHO but, not enough to swing any undecided Dems in my opinion.
But, I'll admit, I don't understand how anyone could support Clinton or Sanders. It's like picking up two different snakes, pick your poison. Both of them will eventually bite you.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Ray are you assuming that medical care doesn't cost us anything now and that it will cost $15 trillion under Bernie? That number doesn't make any sense to me.
Bernie has never been so clear a Socialist as yesterday.
Hillary is above all.
Martin is a tin can being kicked down the street just to make noise. That noise is covering either one of Hillary's murders, or Bernie's head down, neck forward, drawn out answers. They both want to denounce inquiries into their past for certain things, but Bernie is talking of an inquiry into this latest gaff. Irony.
There is no moving forward. BOTH parties are engulfed in ripping apart the other. It is like a fight at Chuck E Cheese, screw the little kids, revenge is now!
But what the heck, leave healthcare out. There's still about 3 TRILLION in free stuff.
Funny how no one even bats an eye at BILLION any more.
That was just the one that seemed the most off to me. If that one is way off I would question the whole bunch. How do I fact check the Wall Street Journal?
Ray are you assuming that medical care doesn't cost us anything now and that it will cost $15 trillion under Bernie? That number doesn't make any sense to me.
"Medicare" not "medical" care.
He wants to take the existing Medicare program and turn it into a Single Payer system.
quote
“We need to expand Medicare to cover every man, woman and child as a single-payer national health care program,”
But what the heck, leave healthcare out. There's still about 3 TRILLION in free stuff.
Funny how no one even bats an eye at BILLION any more.
No one here has mentioned it but that Wall Street Journal number has been thoroughly discredited by the economist Gerald Friedman who was referenced in the article. He goes on to show how much we will save rather than claiming it is only an expense. When the numbers are run through it comes out to be a huge saving and much higher quality of care than our present system.
No one here has mentioned it but that Wall Street Journal number has been thoroughly discredited by the economist Gerald Friedman who was referenced in the article. He goes on to show how much we will save rather than claiming it is only an expense. When the numbers are run through it comes out to be a huge saving and much higher quality of care than our present system.
When the numbers are run through. Here's some of what I could find.
Health care financing in the U.S. is regressive, weighing heaviest on the poor, the working class, and the sick. With the progressive financing plan outlined for HR 676 (below), 95% of all U.S. households would save money.
HR 676 (Section 211, Appendix 2) specifies a financing plan for single-payer that includes • Maintaining current federal financing for health care • Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% of income earners • Instituting a modest tax on unearned income • Instituting a modest and progressive tax on payroll, self-employment • Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions
The following progressive financing plan would meet the specifications of HR 676: • Existing sources of federal revenues for health care • Tax of 0.5% on stock trades and 0.01% tax per year to maturity on transactions in bonds, swaps, and trades • 6% high-income surtax (applies to households with incomes > $225,000) • 6% tax on unearned income from capital gains, dividends, interest, profits, and rents • 6% payroll tax on top 60% of income earners (applies to incomes over $53,000, tax paid by employers) • 3% payroll tax on the bottom 40% of income earners (applies to incomes under $53,000, tax paid by employers)
It may indeed save money, after you run the numbers of the laundry list of additional taxes, including taking close to 6% of everyone's retirement income. I do love how he says the 60% of people who get the additional 6% payroll tax have it "paid by employers." The cost of an employee is the same to an employer if the tax comes from the employer or is paid to the employee and the employee pays it. It still comes out of what that company is going to pay for an employee (salary and benefits combined).
So everyone's tax goes up 3-6 percentage points, and your retirement is taxed an additional 6%. It's easy to save billions when you're raising taxes billions.
He's the one. I didn't realize that he was a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is our system here. Anyway The Wall Street numbers were supposed to be based on the report that he was involved with and now has refuted. So now I am questioning all of the numbers. They may or may not be accurate. Those were the numbers that Hillary used against Bernie in the debate and they are being roundly criticized now.
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the US. It is one of two official U.S. affiliates of the Socialist International. It was formed in 1982 from a merger of the Michael Harrington led Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the smaller New American Movement. DSA publishes a quarterly journal, Democratic Left. DSA Conferences
Go here for Democratic Socialists of America conferences. About DSA
Circa 2000, Democratic Socialists of America was a national organization of about 7,000 members. There were about 15 local chapters. New locals had just formed in Oregon and Arizona and a long dormant local in San Francisco had a new organizing committee. In California locals existed in San Diego, Sacramento and East Bay, as well as San Francisco. The Los Angeles local had declined to non functioning in the last 6 years. Over 50% of total DSA members lived in areas without locals. In addition the national and locals, there were several Commissions. These groups dealt with specific issues and are not geographically organized. For example there is currently functioning Latino, Anti Racism, Feminism, Labor, and Religion and Socialism Commissions. The eco-socialism and African American Commissions are currently not functioning. Sacramento DSA, hosted both the Anti Racism and Latino Commissions[1]. Inspiration from Gramsci
While claiming to be socialist, Democratic Socialists of America is a Marxist organization, that draws heavily from the ideas of the late Italian Communist Party theoretician Antonio Gramsci. Orange County California DSA acknowledged its debt to Gramsci in its February 1984 newsletter. "Antonio Gramsci was a founder of the Italian Communist Party. He developed theories on "open ended Marxism" and independent Euro-Communism. His writings have remained influential among European parties of the left for several decades. They have also formed a vital part of the ideas that brought about the formation of today's DSA."
Ol Bernie and Gerald are rubbing shoulders with some of the world's most infamous communists and Marxists. I can see why a socialist would like Bernie--kinda.
quote
Prominent members:
Neil Abercrombie, former Hawaii Governor, Obama friend Stanley Aronowitz, academic, marxist activist David Bacon, journalist, activist, communist Ron Bloom, former Obama "Car Czar" Paul Buhle, labor historian, marxist Linda Burnham, former Maoist, feminist and black activist Ben Dobbs, los Angeles lawyer, activist, former communist Barbara Ehrenreich, academic, activist, marxist Matthew Hallinan - former communist Dorothy Healey, former communist leader Richard Healey, red diaper baby Maurice Isserman, historian, former communist Clinton Jencks,academic, activist, former communist Jose LaLuz, SEIU Vice president, Puerto Rico marxist Peggy Lipschutz, communist, Illinois artis Manning Marable, Marxist academic Ben Margolis, former communist, lawyer John McTernan - former communist, lawyer Ruth W. Messinger, New York City Councilor, marxist Gus Newport, former Berkeley Mayor, activist. marxist Joni Rabinowitz, Pennsylvania activist, ex Maoist Quentin Young, former communist, health activist, Obama mentor Frank Wilkinson activist, ex communist Tim Wohlforth, ex Trotskyist, writer Cornel West, academic, activist, Obama friend and adviser, marxist Saul Wellman, labor activist, ex communist James Weinstein, ex communist, marxist Kurt Stand, former communist, convicted East German and Soviet spy
I don't know where you are but Democratic Socialism is not the American system of government, in spite of the Progressive's best efforts.
quote
Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government.
Source: Busky, Donald F. (July 20, 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0275968861.
On a national scale, the only way a functional "collective" control or ownership can happen is if government is either the owner or the controller.
You try to position yourself as "above the fray" or "an independent thinker" who is only slightly left of center ( your words, not mine).
However, when you make statements such as this it is clear that you have deluded yourself into believing you are thinking clearly when in fact your are not. When you call the US a democratic socialist country it makes the rest of us wonder about anything you say since it's such an ignorant comment.
BTW, ignorant is not a pejorative, it doesn't mean stupid, it means uneducated.
Since we have a capitalistic society with some socialist components like infrastructure etc. I thought that would define us as democratic socialists. Either pure capitalism or pure socialism would be a disaster. I don't recoil in horror when I hear either word. I still consider myself pretty much a centrist/moderate even though that doesn't work on this forum.
Source: Busky, Donald F. (July 20, 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0275968861.
On a national scale, the only way a functional "collective" control or ownership can happen is if government is either the owner or the controller.
If that is an accurate definition of democratic socialism I'm wrong. I don't believe in pure socialism. But the word socialism doesn't send me into a panic. Once more, I pick and choose. I could never be a hard conservative or a hard liberal. I like things from both sides and I dislike things from both sides.
You try to position yourself as "above the fray" or "an independent thinker" who is only slightly left of center ( your words, not mine).
However, when you make statements such as this it is clear that you have deluded yourself into believing you are thinking clearly when in fact your are not. When you call the US a democratic socialist country it makes the rest of us wonder about anything you say since it's such an ignorant comment.
BTW, ignorant is not a pejorative, it doesn't mean stupid, it means uneducated.
I am both formally and self educated. I am sure that there are subjects of which I am ignorant just as you must be but I don't think that is a very nice word to throw around.
I am both formally and self educated. I am sure that there are subjects of which I am ignorant just as you must be but I don't think that is a very nice word to throw around.
Ignorant is no more pejorative than illiterate. Just as illiterate simply means not knowing how to read, ignorant means not knowing a certain thing or subject. Depending on usage it can mean someone who is uneducated in general, or simply uneducated about a particular subject.
Ignorant is not the same as stupid. An ignorant person lacks knowledge but can learn. A stupid person lacks the mental ability to acquire knowledge.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-21-2015).]
I am both formally and self educated. I am sure that there are subjects of which I am ignorant just as you must be but I don't think that is a very nice word to throw around.
So you are saying the word "socialism" doesn't bother you, but "ignorant" does?
Sounds like the average Liberal to me. Feelings trump facts. I pointed out the you were FACTUALLY wrong, clearly stated the term "ignorant" wasn't meant as a pejorative and yet you decided that I was being mean.
Seems like you're not sure that you're a liberal.
So with a hat tip to John Hawkins of Townhall.com - You might be a liberal if… You think every man accused of sexual assault is guilty until proven innocent.........except Bill Clinton.
You believe there's a "Republican War on Women;" yet you are okay with aborting baby girls for any reason, think any man who says he identifies as a woman should be able to use the women's bathroom and you want to put Bill Clinton back in the White House.
You deny you're a racist for insisting that black Americans aren't competent enough to get an ID to vote.
You think that Obama could have a productive conversation with Islamists but dialogue with the NRA is impossible.
You believe both that the police are violent trigger-happy racists who shoot people for no good reason and that we should disarm the populace so that only the government has guns.
You believe you're a caring and compassionate person because you advocate giving other people's money away.
You believe that anyone who dislikes Barack Obama must hate him because he's a minority but your hatred of Ted Cruz and Clarence Thomas is perfectly justifiable.
You blame the Republicans for the failure of Obamacare even though none of them voted for it.
Your first response to a terrorist attack is to try to disarm every law-abiding gun owner in the country.
You believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, Rachel Dolezal is black and Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.
You believe Hillary Clinton is telling the truth. About anything. EVER.
Sounds like the average Liberal to me. Feelings trump facts. I pointed out the you were FACTUALLY wrong, clearly stated the term "ignorant" wasn't meant as a pejorative and yet you decided that I was being mean.
Seems like you're not sure that you're a liberal.
So with a hat tip to John Hawkins of Townhall.com - You might be a liberal if… You think every man accused of sexual assault is guilty until proven innocent.........except Bill Clinton.
You believe there's a "Republican War on Women;" yet you are okay with aborting baby girls for any reason, think any man who says he identifies as a woman should be able to use the women's bathroom and you want to put Bill Clinton back in the White House.
You deny you're a racist for insisting that black Americans aren't competent enough to get an ID to vote.
You think that Obama could have a productive conversation with Islamists but dialogue with the NRA is impossible.
You believe both that the police are violent trigger-happy racists who shoot people for no good reason and that we should disarm the populace so that only the government has guns.
You believe you're a caring and compassionate person because you advocate giving other people's money away.
You believe that anyone who dislikes Barack Obama must hate him because he's a minority but your hatred of Ted Cruz and Clarence Thomas is perfectly justifiable.
You blame the Republicans for the failure of Obamacare even though none of them voted for it.
Your first response to a terrorist attack is to try to disarm every law-abiding gun owner in the country.
You believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, Rachel Dolezal is black and Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.
You believe Hillary Clinton is telling the truth. About anything. EVER.
Of all those the only one that applies to me is the one about trigger happy cops. and that one only half way. I have never advocated disarming anyone and I own three guns myself. It seems like you want to label anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% an ignorant liberal. I don't think that either conservative or liberal is a pejorative term. I don't agree with extremists from either side. One of us is ignorant though. If you think that I'm talking about you please don't take it as an insult. It's obviously a compliment. You're welcome.
