Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

No chance conservatives vote for Sanders.  As a conservative I am not happy about having Trump maintain his lead right now.  I am hoping Cruz or Kasich can overtake him.  However, more than rooting for any one republican candidate,  I find myself rooting against Sanders more than anything else.  I think he would be a disaster for the country as President.   His economic policy proposals are so bad and unrealistic.

I should have been more clear.  I don't anticipate he will get every conservative vote.  But he will win with the help of a lot of conservatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • NCCommish

    1324

  • timschochet

    1199

  • The Commish

    1082

  • Sinn Fein

    948

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A curse upon New York - no New York sports franchise will win a title in 2016. For every person that likes this post I'll add a year to the curse.

Want to offer a particularly large #### you to the people who made tonight possible. We could've had Bernie ####### Sanders as our president. Enjoy president Trump.

Here's Bernie's speech from Oct. 12, 2011 on the Panama deal. It is unbelievable how time after time after time, he has been on the right side of issues.   Finally, Mr. President, let's talk abou

On breaking up the big banks I found this quote interesting:

 

Quote

Bernie’s probably right on this one. Even Sandy Weill—who once was proud to be referred to on Wall Street as the “Shatterer of Glass-Steagall”—now seems to agree. In a 2012 interview on CNBC he said, “What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking form banking. Have the banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not going to be too big to fail.”

It should be kept in mind the Weill pretty much was the guy that convinced Congress and Clinton to end Glass/Steagall. And he did it using quotes from JP Morgan in 1929 that never proved to be true. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

PSA. Do not go into the assisted suicide thread. Makes you think of things you'd rather not. Someone say something stupid or funny I could use it.

Commish's Son:  Dad, how do you catch a squirrel?  

Commish:  I shoot it with a BB gun and go pick it up.

Commish's Son:  No, dad, it's joke...ask how.

Commish:  Oh, sorry....how?

Commish's Son:  Climb up the tree and act like a nut....hilarious kid laughter ensues.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

No chance conservatives vote for Sanders.  As a conservative I am not happy about having Trump maintain his lead right now.  I am hoping Cruz or Kasich can overtake him.  However, more than rooting for any one republican candidate,  I find myself rooting against Sanders more than anything else.  I think he would be a disaster for the country as President.   His economic policy proposals are so bad and unrealistic.

Again they already do in Vermont. In pretty good numbers in fact he wins areas no liberal normally would. Will everyone vote for him? Of course not. But a more will than some might think.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

PSA. Do not go into the assisted suicide thread. Makes you think of things you'd rather not. Someone say something stupid or funny I could use it.

I have a dog knock-knock joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

Commish's Son:  Dad, how do you catch a squirrel?  

Commish:  I shoot it with a BB gun and go pick it up.

Commish's Son:  No, dad, it's joke...ask how.

Commish:  Oh, sorry....how?

Commish's Son:  Climb up the tree and act like a nut....hilarious kid laughter ensues.  

Nothing like kids to get you right

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NCCommish said:
3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Commish's Son:  Dad, how do you catch a squirrel?  

Commish:  I shoot it with a BB gun and go pick it up.

Commish's Son:  No, dad, it's joke...ask how.

Commish:  Oh, sorry....how?

Commish's Son:  Climb up the tree and act like a nut....hilarious kid laughter ensues.  

Nothing like kids to get you right

My kid has my dry sense of humor...his delivery kills me all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NCCommish said:
11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

You have to not be terrible at starting the joke off.

Wasn't sure where I needed to start Ill try again. This a knock knock joke right?

 

Knock knock

:lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NCCommish said:

I laughed

You are officially as comedically sophisticated as a group of sleep deprived kids at a sleepover or adults who have been getting wasted for at least five hours.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

You are officially as comedically sophisticated as a group of sleep deprived kids at a sleepover or adults who have been getting wasted for at least five hours.

 
  •  

I am easy and cheap. That's what my wife likes about me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NCCommish said:

PSA. Do not go into the assisted suicide thread. Makes you think of things you'd rather not. Someone say something stupid or funny I could use it.

Roses are red
Violets are gray
Pansies are gray
I'm a dog

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Baloney Sandwich said:

The Panama Papers leak is a potential game changer in the Democratic primary.  At minimum, Hillary and her State Department pushed for the free trade agreement with Panama in 2011 despite warnings it would help rich hide money.  Let's see what is reported in the press over the next few days as I can't imagine there will not be information coming out about US corporations and individuals also involved.

Here's Bernie's speech from Oct. 12, 2011 on the Panama deal. It is unbelievable how time after time after time, he has been on the right side of issues.

  Finally, Mr. President, let's talk about the Panama Free Trade Agreement.

          Panama's entire annual economic output is only $26.7 billion a year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the U.S. economy.  No-one can legitimately make the claim that approving this free trade agreement will significantly increase American jobs.

          Then, why would we be considering a stand-alone free trade agreement with this country?

          Well, it turns out that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in off-shore tax havens.  And, the Panama Free Trade Agreement would make this bad situation much worse. 

          Each and every year, the wealthy and large corporations evade $100 billion in U.S. taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and other countries.

          According to Citizens for Tax Justice, "A tax haven . . . has one of three characteristics: It has no income tax or a very low-rate income tax; it has bank secrecy laws; and it has a history of non-cooperation with other countries on exchanging information about tax matters.  Panama has all three of those. ... They're probably the worst."

          Mr. President, the trade agreement with Panama would effectively bar the U.S. from cracking down on illegal and abusive offshore tax havens in Panama.  In fact, combating tax haven abuse in Panama would be a violation of this free trade agreement, exposing the U.S. to fines from international authorities.

          In 2008, the Government Accountability Office said that 17 of the 100 largest American companies were operating a total of 42 subsidiaries in Panama.  This free trade agreement would make it easier for the wealthy and large corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes and it must be defeated.  At a time when we have a record-breaking $14.7 trillion national debt and an unsustainable federal deficit, the last thing that we should be doing is making it easier for the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in this country to avoid paying their fair share in taxes by setting-up offshore tax havens in Panama.

  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Point to specific instances where Hillary's integrity was compromised. This idea that Hillary is somehow beholden to the oil and gas industry because of 0.15% or 0.8% of her contributions came from folks working in that industry is kind of silly. It's exactly the type of misleading, soundbite politics that Bernie is supposed to be against. 

 

 

I'm talking about perception. Over the years, even as a very uninformed person, I know there have been red flags with Hillary (Benghazi, email scandal, etc.). 

Bernie is appealing to people in that he appears to be an honest guy. I would say it feels like one of his top qualities.It seems like as someone trying to become president, he should highlight what are perceived to be his strengths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

And again, for people like timschochet, who really want legitimate free trade, it's probably a bad idea to keep labeling agreements like this one "free trade".

You may be right. I don't know anything about the Panama deal. I won't comment until I've learned more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I WILL say that the reason George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton pushed for the Panama free trade agreement, based on their statements at the time, was basically the same reason all free trade agreements are pushed for- so that we can sell our products in other countries without tariffs, and so that our consumers have access to cheaper goods. And the main reason it was opposed by some progressives at the time, along with unions, is the same reason they always oppose such agreements: because they threaten wages and existing American jobs. In this sort of argument, for a variety of reasons, I stand on the pro free trade side. 

Now the part about the tax shelters is a separate issue, in the same way that intellectual property concerns and environmental issues are a separate issue for the TPP. It may have been, in the case of Panama, that the free trade agreement was irrelevant to the tax shelters. Or it may have been that it was relevant, but that the benefits of the agreement simply outweighed the possibilities of added corruption. Or it may have been a terrible deal from the outset, because of the tax shelter aspect. I don't know. What I do know is that Bernie has opposed every free trade deal we've had in modern times, and no matter what his specific complaints are in general it comes back to worrying about existing wages and jobs without taking into account the new economic opportunities which arise as a direct results of these agreements, and I think he's been consistently wrong about this for decades. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I WILL say that the reason George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton pushed for the Panama free trade agreement, based on their statements at the time, was basically the same reason all free trade agreements are pushed for- so that we can sell our products in other countries without tariffs, and so that our consumers have access to cheaper goods. And the main reason it was opposed by some progressives at the time, along with unions, is the same reason they always oppose such agreements: because they threaten wages and existing American jobs. In this sort of argument, for a variety of reasons, I stand on the pro free trade side. 

Now the part about the tax shelters is a separate issue, in the same way that intellectual property concerns and environmental issues are a separate issue for the TPP. It may have been, in the case of Panama, that the free trade agreement was irrelevant to the tax shelters. Or it may have been that it was relevant, but that the benefits of the agreement simply outweighed the possibilities of added corruption. Or it may have been a terrible deal from the outset, because of the tax shelter aspect. I don't know. What I do know is that Bernie has opposed every free trade deal we've had in modern times, and no matter what his specific complaints are in general it comes back to worrying about existing wages and jobs without taking into account the new economic opportunities which arise as a direct results of these agreements, and I think he's been consistently wrong about this for decades. 

Thanks for not commenting until you've learned more. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AnonymousBob said:

As far as I'm concerned, Bernie can keep this issue. Hillary should stay away from it. 

I don't believe someone can logically argue for minimum wage hikes and at the same time want amnesty for illegal immigrants. Almost the entire reason illegals are here, and necessary to our economy, is because minimum wage laws create a black market need. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I WILL say that the reason George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton pushed for the Panama free trade agreement, based on their statements at the time, was basically the same reason all free trade agreements are pushed for- so that we can sell our products in other countries without tariffs, and so that our consumers have access to cheaper goods. And the main reason it was opposed by some progressives at the time, along with unions, is the same reason they always oppose such agreements: because they threaten wages and existing American jobs. In this sort of argument, for a variety of reasons, I stand on the pro free trade side. 

Now the part about the tax shelters is a separate issue, in the same way that intellectual property concerns and environmental issues are a separate issue for the TPP. It may have been, in the case of Panama, that the free trade agreement was irrelevant to the tax shelters. Or it may have been that it was relevant, but that the benefits of the agreement simply outweighed the possibilities of added corruption. Or it may have been a terrible deal from the outset, because of the tax shelter aspect. I don't know. What I do know is that Bernie has opposed every free trade deal we've had in modern times, and no matter what his specific complaints are in general it comes back to worrying about existing wages and jobs without taking into account the new economic opportunities which arise as a direct results of these agreements, and I think he's been consistently wrong about this for decades. 

Or because Goldman Sachs wanted it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

And I wasn't commenting on the specifics of that agreement, only about free trade in general. It's badly in need of defenders around here (and for that matter, in America right now.) 

I'm all for free trade, and I am inclined to agree with you, but not all agreements are created alike.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Now the part about the tax shelters is a separate issue, in the same way that intellectual property concerns and environmental issues are a separate issue for the TPP. 

No, they're not separate issues. They're primary issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The_Man said:

It's been a long eight months.

(To be fair, she's not advocating an across the board $15 an hour federal minimum wage with her statements)

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, The_Man said:

Here's Bernie's speech from Oct. 12, 2011 on the Panama deal. It is unbelievable how time after time after time, he has been on the right side of issues.

  Finally, Mr. President, let's talk about the Panama Free Trade Agreement.

          Panama's entire annual economic output is only $26.7 billion a year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the U.S. economy.  No-one can legitimately make the claim that approving this free trade agreement will significantly increase American jobs.

          Then, why would we be considering a stand-alone free trade agreement with this country?

          Well, it turns out that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in off-shore tax havens.  And, the Panama Free Trade Agreement would make this bad situation much worse. 

          Each and every year, the wealthy and large corporations evade $100 billion in U.S. taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and other countries.

          According to Citizens for Tax Justice, "A tax haven . . . has one of three characteristics: It has no income tax or a very low-rate income tax; it has bank secrecy laws; and it has a history of non-cooperation with other countries on exchanging information about tax matters.  Panama has all three of those. ... They're probably the worst."

          Mr. President, the trade agreement with Panama would effectively bar the U.S. from cracking down on illegal and abusive offshore tax havens in Panama.  In fact, combating tax haven abuse in Panama would be a violation of this free trade agreement, exposing the U.S. to fines from international authorities.

          In 2008, the Government Accountability Office said that 17 of the 100 largest American companies were operating a total of 42 subsidiaries in Panama.  This free trade agreement would make it easier for the wealthy and large corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes and it must be defeated.  At a time when we have a record-breaking $14.7 trillion national debt and an unsustainable federal deficit, the last thing that we should be doing is making it easier for the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in this country to avoid paying their fair share in taxes by setting-up offshore tax havens in Panama.

You should post this over in the Panama Papers thread. Let people see who knows #### from shinola among the people who might end up President.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'm all for free trade, and I am inclined to agree with you, but not all agreements are created alike.

That's true. And maybe this one is bad. Guess we'll find out more about it. 

But it gets awfully tiresome to hear the same people over and over praise Bernie for being some kind of prescient genius when in fact he's against every free trade deal. He's also opposed to nearly every use of American military force. And he opposed TARP which would have been disastrous had it failed. 

IMO, Bernie Sanders lacks the judgment to be a President because nearly every major vote he has ever taken as a senator has been ideologically based. To me that shows a lack of independent thinking. Hillary is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, but she is realistic, pragmatic, and thinks for herself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

And I wasn't commenting on the specifics of that agreement, only about free trade in general. It's badly in need of defenders around here (and for that matter, in America right now.) 

Hit us back with all of the ooportunities that arise from making such an agreement with a country whose GDP is around 0.2% of ours, has lower wages, and has a relaxed tax code.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That's true. And maybe this one is bad. Guess we'll find out more about it. 

But it gets awfully tiresome to hear the same people over and over praise Bernie for being some kind of prescient genius when in fact he's against every free trade deal. He's also opposed to nearly every use of American military force. And he opposed TARP which would have been disastrous had it failed. 

IMO, Bernie Sanders lacks the judgment to be a President because nearly every major vote he has ever taken as a senator has been ideologically based. To me that shows a lack of independent thinking. Hillary is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, but she is realistic, pragmatic, and thinks for herself. 

:lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

That's true. And maybe this one is bad. Guess we'll find out more about it. 

But it gets awfully tiresome to hear the same people over and over praise Bernie for being some kind of prescient genius when in fact he's against every free trade deal. He's also opposed to nearly every use of American military force. And he opposed TARP which would have been disastrous had it failed. 

IMO, Bernie Sanders lacks the judgment to be a President because nearly every major vote he has ever taken as a senator has been ideologically based. To me that shows a lack of independent thinking. Hillary is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, but she is realistic, pragmatic, and thinks for herself. 

Right. Voting in lock step with the Democrats, and not with your conscience, is the way to show independent thinking.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That's true. And maybe this one is bad. Guess we'll find out more about it. 

But it gets awfully tiresome to hear the same people over and over praise Bernie for being some kind of prescient genius when in fact he's against every free trade deal. He's also opposed to nearly every use of American military force. And he opposed TARP which would have been disastrous had it failed. 

IMO, Bernie Sanders lacks the judgment to be a President because nearly every major vote he has ever taken as a senator has been ideologically based. To me that shows a lack of independent thinking. Hillary is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, but she is realistic, pragmatic, and thinks for herself. 

:lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That's true. And maybe this one is bad. Guess we'll find out more about it. 

But it gets awfully tiresome to hear the same people over and over praise Bernie for being some kind of prescient genius when in fact he's against every free trade deal. He's also opposed to nearly every use of American military force. And he opposed TARP which would have been disastrous had it failed. 

IMO, Bernie Sanders lacks the judgment to be a President because nearly every major vote he has ever taken as a senator has been ideologically based. To me that shows a lack of independent thinking. Hillary is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, but she is realistic, pragmatic, and thinks for herself. 

:lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That's true. And maybe this one is bad. Guess we'll find out more about it. 

But it gets awfully tiresome to hear the same people over and over praise Bernie for being some kind of prescient genius when in fact he's against every free trade deal. He's also opposed to nearly every use of American military force. And he opposed TARP which would have been disastrous had it failed. 

IMO, Bernie Sanders lacks the judgment to be a President because nearly every major vote he has ever taken as a senator has been ideologically based. To me that shows a lack of independent thinking. Hillary is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, but she is realistic, pragmatic, and thinks for herself. 

Well here's one thing I can say: I trust Sanders when he says that something is in a bill, I believe him. And when he says that he will be against a trade pact I believe him.

I have zero faith that Hillary will oppose the TPP as president even though she says she opposes it now. In fact I will be so bold as to say she is totally lying about it.

 

Quote

When running for president in 2007 and 2008, she spoke strongly against potential agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade

 

As we know the opposite happened.

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05782734.pdf

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That's true. And maybe this one is bad. Guess we'll find out more about it. 

But it gets awfully tiresome to hear the same people over and over praise Bernie for being some kind of prescient genius when in fact he's against every free trade deal. He's also opposed to nearly every use of American military force. And he opposed TARP which would have been disastrous had it failed. 

IMO, Bernie Sanders lacks the judgment to be a President because nearly every major vote he has ever taken as a senator has been ideologically based. To me that shows a lack of independent thinking. Hillary is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, but she is realistic, pragmatic, and thinks for herself. 

:lmao: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, timschochet said:

And I wasn't commenting on the specifics of that agreement, only about free trade in general. It's badly in need of defenders around here (and for that matter, in America right now.) 

Not just here in America....it's a global issue.  When "free trade" doesn't exist anywhere in the world, it should be an indicator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That's true. And maybe this one is bad. Guess we'll find out more about it. 

But it gets awfully tiresome to hear the same people over and over praise Bernie for being some kind of prescient genius when in fact he's against every free trade deal. He's also opposed to nearly every use of American military force. And he opposed TARP which would have been disastrous had it failed. 

IMO, Bernie Sanders lacks the judgment to be a President because nearly every major vote he has ever taken as a senator has been ideologically based. To me that shows a lack of independent thinking. Hillary is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, but she is realistic, pragmatic, and thinks for of herself. 

Fixed your typo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...