Doug, will you be refusing your Medicare benefits when the time comes as a matter of principle? [/quote

First of all what gives you the idea that I oppose social security Medicare or any other government benefits we have here in the U.S. just because I opose true socialism.

I don't have that idea. Just saying that we're all a little bit socialist. There must be some kind of collectivist mentality or it would be impossible to maintain an orderly society.

I'm not the foremost expert on Bernie Sanders but if you are thinking Soviet-era socialism re:workers I'm not sure that's what Sanders is. Could be, though. I dunno.

 

Sanders has lots of good idea's, but one man, one gun, can't really change things.

Sadly you are correct pops as I think if he were to win he would face the same gridlock that Obama has as most of his ideas are opposed to the GOP agenda.

Sanders has lots of good idea's, but one man, one gun, can't really change things.

Sadly you are correct pops as I think if he were to win he would face the same gridlock that Obama has as most of his ideas are opposed to the GOP agenda.

Sadly? Is that sad? We're extremely fortunate to live under a system where one man doesn't have the power to change things on his own.

Sanders has lots of good idea's, but one man, one gun, can't really change things.

Sadly you are correct pops as I think if he were to win he would face the same gridlock that Obama has as most of his ideas are opposed to the GOP agenda.

Sadly? Is that sad? We're extremely fortunate to live under a system where one man doesn't have the power to change things on his own.

So you really believe a system of gridlock where neither party will compromise is working? Well alright then.

Sanders has lots of good idea's, but one man, one gun, can't really change things.

Sadly you are correct pops as I think if he were to win he would face the same gridlock that Obama has as most of his ideas are opposed to the GOP agenda.

Sadly? Is that sad? We're extremely fortunate to live under a system where one man doesn't have the power to change things on his own.

Sadly, you think that gridlock is the way it is supposed to be. Sadly, you reward gridlock with your vote. Sadly, you are not alone. It is all a very sad state of affairs thanks to gridlock.

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by gondicar]

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

Give that kind of power to Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You'd be OK with that?

Give that kind of power to Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You'd be OK with that?

So instead of bipartisan cooperation between the two parties you prefer gridlock? Really?

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

I have no idea what "kind of power" are you talking about. Gridlock is bad no matter who is in office, legislative branch or executive branch. But you say gridlock is good. That's twisted.

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

I have no idea what "kind of power" are you talking about. Gridlock is bad no matter who is in office, legislative branch or executive branch. But you say gridlock is good. That's twisted.

Just read the posts (the ones on 7/20/15 at 21:55 in particular), and I'll gladly stand by that statement. I'm talking about the kind of power that grants one man the ability to make changes all by himself. The desire to live under that kind of system is worse than twisted.

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

I have no idea what "kind of power" are you talking about. Gridlock is bad no matter who is in office, legislative branch or executive branch. But you say gridlock is good. That's twisted.

Just read the posts (the ones on 7/20/15 at 21:55 in particular), and I'll gladly stand by that statement. I'm talking about the kind of power that grants one man the ability to make changes all by himself. The desire to live under that kind of system is worse than twisted.

No one here is advocating for that kind of system and no one has expressed a desire to live under that kind of system, that's just you putting words in other people's mouths. No one is asking you to choose between a dictator and gridlock. But you seem to be happy with gridlock. Seems as though you think anything short of gridlock is the same as granting one man the ability to make changes all by himself, and THAT is twisted.

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

I have no idea what "kind of power" are you talking about. Gridlock is bad no matter who is in office, legislative branch or executive branch. But you say gridlock is good. That's twisted.

Just read the posts (the ones on 7/20/15 at 21:55 in particular), and I'll gladly stand by that statement. I'm talking about the kind of power that grants one man the ability to make changes all by himself. The desire to live under that kind of system is worse than twisted.

No one here is advocating for that kind of system and no one has expressed a desire to live under that kind of system, that's just you putting words in other people's mouths. No one is asking you to choose between a dictator and gridlock. But you seem to be happy with gridlock. Seems as though you think anything short of gridlock is the same as granting one man the ability to make changes all by himself, and THAT is twisted.

Again, reading the posts will help. We had two different posters express regret that one man (Sanders) can't really change things. I didn't put those words in their mouth. Sorry, I just don't believe one man should have that much power. Luckily, the Founders agreed.

And since you guys have gridlock on the brain, I propose the following solution....Lets overturn election results to prevent a split government. Just give one party enough votes to pass anything they want. How's that?

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

I have no idea what "kind of power" are you talking about. Gridlock is bad no matter who is in office, legislative branch or executive branch. But you say gridlock is good. That's twisted.

Just read the posts (the ones on 7/20/15 at 21:55 in particular), and I'll gladly stand by that statement. I'm talking about the kind of power that grants one man the ability to make changes all by himself. The desire to live under that kind of system is worse than twisted.

No one here is advocating for that kind of system and no one has expressed a desire to live under that kind of system, that's just you putting words in other people's mouths. No one is asking you to choose between a dictator and gridlock. But you seem to be happy with gridlock. Seems as though you think anything short of gridlock is the same as granting one man the ability to make changes all by himself, and THAT is twisted.

Again, reading the posts will help. We had two different posters express regret that one man (Sanders) can't really change things. I didn't put those words in their mouth. Sorry, I just don't believe one man should have that much power. Luckily, the Founders agreed.

And since you guys have gridlock on the brain, I propose the following solution....Lets overturn election results to prevent a split government. Just give one party enough votes to pass anything they want. How's that?

I read the posts. One man (or woman, for that matter) can change things, but he (or she) can't do it "on his own". You added the "on his own". You.

As for your proposed solution, it is stupid. Split government is not the problem. Gridlock is the problem. Split government is possible without gridlock. Or at least it used to be. Maybe it isn't anymore, and that would be sad.

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by gondicar]

Love Bernies chicken.

Government is supposed to function. These buffoons can't fix our infrastructure, educate our youth, or win a war.

Because of gridlock America is losing. I don't know how anyone can be proud of crumbling infrastructure, stupid kids, and lost wars.

Compromise = Total Capitulation?

Huh?

here are his proposed 12 steps forward

1.Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
2.Reversing Climate Change
3.Creating Worker Co-ops
4.Growing the Trade Union Movement
5.Raising the Minimum Wage
6.Pay Equity for Women Workers
7.Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
8.Making College Affordable for All
9.Taking on Wall Street
10.Health Care as a Right for All
11.Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
12.Real Tax Reform

1. I agree some infrastructure work should be done. First. I'd like to see a full accounting of how gas tax revenue was spent.
2. If it didn't change it wouldn't be called "climate."
3. Need more details on this one.
4. Whatever
5. Agree. Minimum wage should be raised.
6. As long as they work the same amount of hours, why not?
7. Such as?
8. Pay for it how?
9. "Take on" in what way?
10. Pay for it how?
11. Can't argue with that
12. How specifically?

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

here are his proposed 12 steps forward

1.Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
2.Reversing Climate Change
3.Creating Worker Co-ops
4.Growing the Trade Union Movement
5.Raising the Minimum Wage
6.Pay Equity for Women Workers
7.Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
8.Making College Affordable for All
9.Taking on Wall Street
10.Health Care as a Right for All
11.Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
12.Real Tax Reform

1. I agree some infrastructure work should be done. First. I'd like to see a full accounting of how gas tax revenue was spent.
2. If it didn't change it wouldn't be called "climate."
3. Need more details on this one.
4. Whatever
5. Agree. Minimum wage should be raised.
6. As long as they work the same amount of hours, why not?
7. Such as?
8. Pay for it how?
9. "Take on" in what way?
10. Pay for it how?
11. Can't argue with that
12. How specifically?

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

Google is your friend Alloak. If you want more details on what Sanders proposes a simple search will answer your questions. The information is daily found.

People don't associate socialism with communism eventhough they both emerge from work of Karl Marx. They associate it with the failed labor parties of Europe. For example Greece.

Winston Churchill was referring to the Labor party of England when he said that capitalism is unequal sharing of blessing, socialism is the equal sharing of misery. He also said that trying to tax your way to prosperity is like a man trying to get out of a well by lifting himself up in a bucket. A wise man he was and a great liberal.

Do you think Bernie could implement anything close to "true" Socialism? Greece is a good example of a massive economic screw up, but what about the countries that have working Socialistic models? Denmark? Finland? Canada? Norway? Ireland? Sweden? Belgium?

I'm not sure how well those models are actually working. In any event they would never work here.

People don't associate socialism with communism eventhough they both emerge from work of Karl Marx. They associate it with the failed labor parties of Europe. For example Greece.

Winston Churchill was referring to the Labor party of England when he said that capitalism is unequal sharing of blessing, socialism is the equal sharing of misery. He also said that trying to tax your way to prosperity is like a man trying to get out of a well by lifting himself up in a bucket. A wise man he was and a great liberal.

Do you think Bernie could implement anything close to "true" Socialism? Greece is a good example of a massive economic screw up, but what about the countries that have working Socialistic models? Denmark? Finland? Canada? Norway? Ireland? Sweden? Belgium?

I'm not sure how well those models are actually working. In any event they would never work here.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

Doug, will you be refusing your Medicare benefits when the time comes as a matter of principle? [/quote

First of all what gives you the idea that I oppose social security Medicare or any other government benefits we have here in the U.S. just because I opose true socialism.

I don't have that idea. Just saying that we're all a little bit socialist. There must be some kind of collectivist mentality or it would be impossible to maintain an orderly society.

I'm not the foremost expert on Bernie Sanders but if you are thinking Soviet-era socialism re:workers I'm not sure that's what Sanders is. Could be, though. I dunno.

Whenever anyone criticizes socialism it is popular to respond with examples of the classic liberal welfare policies and claiming well if you support that you are a littl ebit socialist. I would not call somneone who believes in a social safety net or other similar things as socialist. I never have and never will. That is not the definition of socialism.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."

Socialists exist along a spectrum and I do think the modern Democratic party is turning inthe direction of socialism and away from real liberalism. The constant attack of the profit motive and attacks on business not because they are corrupt or break laws but because they make too much money or take too much of the "pie" or because the wealhy have too much and should share it with the less wealthy? That's socialism. That's Bernie Sanders. Sorry if you all don't like to hear it but it's true.

 

Sanders has lots of good idea's, but one man, one gun, can't really change things.

Sadly you are correct pops as I think if he were to win he would face the same gridlock that Obama has as most of his ideas are opposed to the GOP agenda.

Sadly? Is that sad? We're extremely fortunate to live under a system where one man doesn't have the power to change things on his own.

So you really believe a system of gridlock where neither party will compromise is working? Well alright then.

Let's get a Mussolini. At least the trains will run on time.

Give that kind of power to Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You'd be OK with that?

So instead of bipartisan cooperation between the two parties you prefer gridlock? Really?

To the left bi-partisan cooperation means doing what the left wants.

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

I have no idea what "kind of power" are you talking about. Gridlock is bad no matter who is in office, legislative branch or executive branch. But you say gridlock is good. That's twisted.

Of course Gridlock can be good. Our system was set up to prevent one branch of government from being too powerful.

Compromise = Total Capitulation?

Huh?

Compromise is the key to a succesful government and both parties seem to have forgotten how to do it.

Doug, will you be refusing your Medicare benefits when the time comes as a matter of principle? [/quote

First of all what gives you the idea that I oppose social security Medicare or any other government benefits we have here in the U.S. just because I opose true socialism.

I don't have that idea. Just saying that we're all a little bit socialist. There must be some kind of collectivist mentality or it would be impossible to maintain an orderly society.

I'm not the foremost expert on Bernie Sanders but if you are thinking Soviet-era socialism re:workers I'm not sure that's what Sanders is. Could be, though. I dunno.

Whenever anyone criticizes socialism it is popular to respond with examples of the classic liberal welfare policies and claiming well if you support that you are a littl ebit socialist. I would not call somneone who believes in a social safety net or other similar things as socialist. I never have and never will. That is not the definition of socialism.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."

Socialists exist along a spectrum and I do think the modern Democratic party is turning inthe direction of socialism and away from real liberalism. The constant attack of the profit motive and attacks on business not because they are corrupt or break laws but because they make too much money or take too much of the "pie" or because the wealhy have too much and should share it with the less wealthy? That's socialism. That's Bernie Sanders. Sorry if you all don't like to hear it but it's true.

Please don't include me in "you all." I'm further away from daily political nuts and bolts than ever. I haven't had any time to really delve into Sanders because I highly doubt he'll be the nominee. I'm also quite tired of the bad blood between you and I and have grown weary of hating on each other.

I understand that observation about attacking the wealthy, but the last economic collapse, Wall Street got bailed out and Main Street went bankrupt or lost massive amounts of assets and retirement savings. I think it's a little more complicated than some massive shift towards socialism.

 

Compromise = Total Capitulation?

Huh?

Compromise is the key to a succesful government and both parties seem to have forgotten how to do it.

Then why did you say this?

To the left bi-partisan cooperation means doing what the left wants.

C'mon now. Fair is fair, no?

Doug, will you be refusing your Medicare benefits when the time comes as a matter of principle? [/quote

First of all what gives you the idea that I oppose social security Medicare or any other government benefits we have here in the U.S. just because I opose true socialism.

I don't have that idea. Just saying that we're all a little bit socialist. There must be some kind of collectivist mentality or it would be impossible to maintain an orderly society.

I'm not the foremost expert on Bernie Sanders but if you are thinking Soviet-era socialism re:workers I'm not sure that's what Sanders is. Could be, though. I dunno.

Whenever anyone criticizes socialism it is popular to respond with examples of the classic liberal welfare policies and claiming well if you support that you are a littl ebit socialist. I would not call somneone who believes in a social safety net or other similar things as socialist. I never have and never will. That is not the definition of socialism.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."

Socialists exist along a spectrum and I do think the modern Democratic party is turning inthe direction of socialism and away from real liberalism. The constant attack of the profit motive and attacks on business not because they are corrupt or break laws but because they make too much money or take too much of the "pie" or because the wealhy have too much and should share it with the less wealthy? That's socialism. That's Bernie Sanders. Sorry if you all don't like to hear it but it's true.

Please don't include me in "you all." I'm further away from daily political nuts and bolts than ever. I haven't had any time to really delve into Sanders because I highly doubt he'll be the nominee. I'm also quite tired of the bad blood between you and I and have grown weary of hating on each other.

I understand that observation about attacking the wealthy, but the last economic collapse, Wall Street got bailed out and Main Street went bankrupt or lost massive amounts of assets and retirement savings. I think it's a little more complicated than some massive shift towards socialism.

There is a strange hypocritsy in today's Demcoratic party in which they constantly attack the wealthy even though they take in billions in contributions from Wall Street. That's the strangest thing about it. The Clinton's are simply the classic example of it.

 

Give that kind of power to Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You'd be OK with that?

So instead of bipartisan cooperation between the two parties you prefer gridlock? Really?

To the left bi-partisan cooperation means doing what the left wants.

Exactly right. And when the TWO parties can't agree, we have gridlock. Strangely though, when the condition exists only ONE party is ever to blame. You'll never guess which one....

Doug, will you be refusing your Medicare benefits when the time comes as a matter of principle? [/quote

First of all what gives you the idea that I oppose social security Medicare or any other government benefits we have here in the U.S. just because I opose true socialism.

I don't have that idea. Just saying that we're all a little bit socialist. There must be some kind of collectivist mentality or it would be impossible to maintain an orderly society.

I'm not the foremost expert on Bernie Sanders but if you are thinking Soviet-era socialism re:workers I'm not sure that's what Sanders is. Could be, though. I dunno.

Whenever anyone criticizes socialism it is popular to respond with examples of the classic liberal welfare policies and claiming well if you support that you are a littl ebit socialist. I would not call somneone who believes in a social safety net or other similar things as socialist. I never have and never will. That is not the definition of socialism.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."

Socialists exist along a spectrum and I do think the modern Democratic party is turning inthe direction of socialism and away from real liberalism. The constant attack of the profit motive and attacks on business not because they are corrupt or break laws but because they make too much money or take too much of the "pie" or because the wealhy have too much and should share it with the less wealthy? That's socialism. That's Bernie Sanders. Sorry if you all don't like to hear it but it's true.

Please don't include me in "you all." I'm further away from daily political nuts and bolts than ever. I haven't had any time to really delve into Sanders because I highly doubt he'll be the nominee. I'm also quite tired of the bad blood between you and I and have grown weary of hating on each other.

I understand that observation about attacking the wealthy, but the last economic collapse, Wall Street got bailed out and Main Street went bankrupt or lost massive amounts of assets and retirement savings. I think it's a little more complicated than some massive shift towards socialism.

There is a strange hypocritsy in today's Demcoratic party in which they constantly attack the wealthy even though they take in billions in contributions from Wall Street. That's the strangest thing about it. The Clinton's are simply the classic example of it.

I wouldn't dare disagree with you there. Thing is, saying and doing are two totally different things. Historically, left and right have red meat in their buckets to throw to the faithful. The GOP has made being pro-life a part of their platform to get the conservative Christian vote every election cycle since Roe v Wade and they've never done anything about that issue.

Last time I checked, Wall Street and the wealthy are doing just fine.