Sanders / Warren 16'

Dear Jarod:

Last May, low-income NYC residents were hit with a series of measures that hiked housing fees while at the same time action was taken to privatize sections of public housing. Who announced that? It was none other than the darling of progressivism, NYC Mayor de Blasio [Democrat].

Likewise, Senator Warren can do her fist-pumping ritual and shout ‘no more secret trade deals’ for multinational corporations. And Senator Sanders can run a perfunctory challenge to Ms. Clinton and say that Congress is totally owned by billionaires and their lobbyists. But demagogic rhetoric aside, we must surely be allowed to ask, 'do they actually defend working class interests.'

Senator Warren built her reputation posturing against corporate greed. But for her criticisms of Boeing, GE and Verizon for federal tax avoidance, she is now by the very nature of her present job, forced to represent GE’s interests. How clever!

Embittered by an increasingly right-wing Democratic party, many are disgusted by political process. Lest they abandon capitalism for politics based thoroughgoing, class analysis, Sanders’ charade candidacy channels the disaffected back into the political system. This grants a left cover to a center-right Democratic Party.

What none of them can say is that amassed wealth and growing social inequality is an essential product of the capitalist system that all of them defend, a system that subordinates all of life and life itself to a financial aristocracy on whose behalf alone their bought-and-paid-for-politicians run the entire political system.

Since Marx called workers of the world to unite to end class rule and imperial exploitation [be it by economic or military means], socialists have insisted on rational, global economic development with basic economic security for all. Socialists insist on investing the working class with responsibility for education, health, jobs, wages, housing and governance.

By way of contrast, American nationalist and US imperialism supporter Bernie Sanders is silent on the social ownership of industry and finance, silent on the socio-political dynamics behind social inequality, silent on the ongoing attack on working people and silent on Democratic Party complicity in it. His campaign opposes working class political independence and diverts burgeoning discontent back into the party in order to contain it. Sanders’ ‘socialism’ is a ruse to avert the real thing.

Bernie Sanders can call himself a ‘socialist’ from now till doomsday. He is no Eugene Victor Debs.

IMT
 
hey - do I call you names?
Yes. Is this the level of dishonesty you are opperating at today? Don't think I am beyond linking to your posts. I am not.
comport yourself like an adult if that is possible for you
Don't instruct me. You are not qualified to do so.
:palm:
here is what I said:


To your contention: of course EO's aren't un-Constitutional; that doesn't mean they can't be abused.
Appeals court keeps block on Obama immigration actions has already shut down 1 of Obama's EO's - SCOTUS is hearing the appeal.

The scope of Obama's EO's are doing damage to Constitutional rule ( defined as normative legislative process).
Governing by EO is inherently NOT the will of the people (Congress).
]
Congress long ago stopped doing the will of the people and Obama wouldn't be forced to use EOs if not for an obstructionist congress. The scope of the GOP obstructionism is damaging our economy, the world economy and the standard of living of all Americans.
You yourself were just complaing about your falling purchasing power.
Our do nothing exept make Obama fail congress is hurting our country far more than Obama's EOs.
Since the GOP made an anounced agenda of complete obstructionism Obama has had no choice. Nice dog wagging but complete fail for you.
Weak sauce there little boy. Since you now admit the transcient nature of EOs you needn't be quite so pussified about them.
It should only be used in extreme urgency cases,
or as guidance for the executive branch ( so called presidential memoranda).

Do I need to expound on how lacking a legislative agenda produces temporal unstable law
that survives a POTUS only by the next POTUS's acquiescence?
Do you want parties simply overturning law, or do you want law to survive past a presidency?
Frankly there are far too many laws already.
HRClinton has promised an expansion on Obama's EO's -how is that good in any way for the country;
rather then the legislative process?

As to HRClinton being a neo-con here is the definition I use "Spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun."
Would else would you call Libyan interventionism 2011, or her Iraq vote, or for that matter meddling with "Friends of Syria"
HRClinton was chief architect of Libya - her voice in the W.H. NSC was determinative, as was her international organizing of regime change

She's as much of a neo-con as Bush was.
Link to Hilary's statement on EOs or drop it. The one I read said the opposite of what you claim.

Finally, words have actual meanings. That is how we communicate clearly.
Neo; Greek New, youth,fresh,etc. Con? Not Hilary.

Accuracy anatta. Without it you can ONLY have miscommunication. Of course if your intention IS to miscommunicate, carry on. I will decry you at every turn.
 
Last edited:
it's really fucked up when out of the plausible candidates that may be elected bernie is the someone I least have a problem with. That's how bad things have gotten. All I can say is, at least he is decent on civil liberties, he's against nsa spying on americans. he's the only candidate that doesn't believe in a survielance state. As usual I wills stay home on election day and smoke a joint in celebration of our nations mediocrity, but he's at least better than clinton the sociopath (fyi I was the first one on JPP to call someoe a sociopath in earnest before desh and christie co-opted it).

trump being elected might be fun just to see how much we can get the world to burn.
 
it's really fucked up when out of the plausible candidates that may be elected bernie is the someone I least have a problem with. That's how bad things have gotten. All I can say is, at least he is decent on civil liberties, he's against nsa spying on americans. he's the only candidate that doesn't believe in a survielance state. As usual I wills stay home on election day and smoke a joint in celebration of our nations mediocrity, but he's at least better than clinton the sociopath (fyi I was the first one on JPP to call someoe a sociopath in earnest before desh and christie co-opted it).

trump being elected might be fun just to see how much we can get the world to burn.

There is a lot more to like about Bernie.
He is pro-gun owner, anti wall street anti foreign intervention etc.
 
Yes. Is this the level of dishonesty you are opperating at today? Don't think I am beyond linking to your posts. I am not. Don't instruct me. You are not qualified to do so.
curb your churlish temper and I won't need to "instruct you". asking for you to be somewhat civil is not "instructing you" - even Vikings can learn to comport themselves in public.
:palm:]
Congress long ago stopped doing the will of the people and Obama wouldn't be forced to use EOs if not for an obstructionist congress. The scope of the GOP obstructionism is damaging our economy, the world economy and the standard of living of all Americans.
You yourself were just complaing about your falling purchasing power.
Our do nothing exept make Obama fail congress is hurting our country far more than Obama's EOs.
Since the GOP made an anounced agenda of complete obstructionism Obama has had no choice. Nice dog wagging but complete fail for you.
stop using my words in response. I used "epic fail" just today directly to you on the other board.
In fact stop the cross board talk. My comment about purchasing power wasn't on this board either -nor was it to you.
Use the information at hand -don't threaten to import it. That's called" cross board talk" and it's not appropriate.
We are both posting to each other on different boards -keep a wall up between them -address the posts, not the posters.

To your rant:
You claimed I said EO's were "unconstitutional" -clearly you bold faced lied about that, or you lack comprehension skills.
Tighten up your language once again.
Obstructionism is a valid Congressional authority.
It's not good for the nation anymore then over-reliance ( what is called legislating by EO) on EO by governing,
but both happen when the system breaks down. It breaks down because of hyper-partisanship.

Obama never really tried, thinking his was a transformative presidency, but Hillary is already more poisonous partisanship.
She even called Republicans her "enemy". She would come into Office and guarantee more of this same brokenness
Weak sauce there little boy. Since you now admit the transcient nature of EOs you needn't be quite so pussified about them.
hackneyed response. The transitory nature of EO's leads to oscillation of policy -
which is obviously not the stability legislation confers
Frankly there are far too many laws already.
idiotic. you just said things need to get done by EO -
are you claiming EO's are superior?
Link to Hilary's statement on EOs or drop it. The one I read said the opposite of what you claim.
(immigration) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/15/hillary-clinton-plans-use-executive-orders-preside/
(gun control) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/u...-plan-for-possible-executive-action.html?_r=0
Finally, words have actual meanings. That is how we communicate clearly.
Neo; Greek New, youth,fresh,etc. Con? Not Hilary
her policies of bringing democracy by the barrel of a gun are so called "neo-con"
I have no idea what you are trying to dispute here

Accuracy anatta. Without it you can ONLY have miscommunication. Of course if your intention IS to miscommunicate, carry on. I will decry you at every turn.
sure. do it in a respectable manner, sans cross board talk, and i'm more then happy to respond to yur posts.
 
curb your churlish temper and I won't need to "instruct you". asking for you to be somewhat civil is not "instructing you" - even Vikings can learn to comport themselves in public.
:palm:]
stop using my words in response. I used "epic fail" just today directly to you on the other board.
In fact stop the cross board talk. My comment about purchasing power wasn't on this board either -nor was it to you.
Use the information at hand -don't threaten to import it. That's called" cross board talk" and it's not appropriate.
We are both posting to each other on different boards -keep a wall up between them -address the posts, not the posters.

To your rant:
You claimed I said EO's were "unconstitutional" -clearly you bold faced lied about that, or you lack comprehension skills.
Tighten up your language once again.
Obstructionism is a valid Congressional authority.
It's not good for the nation anymore then over-reliance ( what is called legislating by EO) on EO by governing,
but both happen when the system breaks down. It breaks down because of hyper-partisanship.

Obama never really tried, thinking his was a transformative presidency, but Hillary is already more poisonous partisanship.
She even called Republicans her "enemy". She would come into Office and guarantee more of this same brokenness
hackneyed response. The transitory nature of EO's leads to oscillation of policy -
which is obviously not the stability legislation confers
idiotic. you just said things need to get done by EO -
are you claiming EO's are superior?
(immigration) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/15/hillary-clinton-plans-use-executive-orders-preside/
(gun control) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/u...-plan-for-possible-executive-action.html?_r=0
her policies of bringing democracy by the barrel of a gun are so called "neo-con"
I have no idea what you are trying to dispute here

sure. do it in a respectable manner, sans cross board talk, and i'm more then happy to respond to yur posts.

You might need to give Rune some slack; because he's had a bad couple of days.
First he failed miserably in a debate on APP, then he got booted from APP for violating the rules, and then he's been refusing to accept the fact that the Vikings had a homosexual rape culture going on and it's creating some anxiety in his life. :D
 
You might need to give Rune some slack; because he's had a bad couple of days.
First he failed miserably in a debate on APP, then he got booted from APP for violating the rules, and then he's been refusing to accept the fact that the Vikings had a homosexual rape culture going on and it's creating some anxiety in his life. :D
:rolleyes: lol OK.
He can come up with some good stuff when he wants to.
 
Your dream ticket is a communist and a blonde "native American princess"? Seriously?

Yeah but he would still vote for the Liar Clinton don't get him wrong, you know the one who let 4 Americans die in Benghazi, the one who used a personal server to send classified documents. But don't worry she had an aid take off the classified heading so no one would know.
 
curb your churlish temper and I won't need to "instruct you". asking for you to be somewhat civil is not "instructing you" - even Vikings can learn to comport themselves in public.
:palm:]
stop using my words in response. I used "epic fail" just today directly to you on the other board.
In fact stop the cross board talk. My comment about purchasing power wasn't on this board either -nor was it to you.
Use the information at hand -don't threaten to import it. That's called" cross board talk" and it's not appropriate.
We are both posting to each other on different boards -keep a wall up between them -address the posts, not the posters.

Actually he is violating board rules if he is doing that.
 

I own property, some in town and some in an unincorporated rural area.

I don't pretend that I should be allowed to raise cattle in town, I knew I didn't have that right when I purchased the property.

I have many more rights on my rural property, I knew that when I bought it.
 
Back
Top