He doesn't piss me off at all. He's very entertaining. And I know he will never be president.I love that Bernie gets the conservatives panties in a bunch. The fact that he pisses them off is good enough for me.
Sound familiar?
The last estimates I read were around a 1500 dollar increase.
Single payer and tuition free public universities is hardly “free everything.” The welfare queen stereotyoe is also kind of silly. There’s no evidence that a significant portion of welfare recipients are abusing the system. I’d rather not have kids going hungry because of some right wing talking point that has little basis in reality. Even the welfare queen’s kids shouldn’t be going hungry.
The money isn’t all being spent on actually defending this country. Huge sums of money go to ridiculously bloated no bid contracts and outdated weapons and technology. There are huge parking lots full of tanks that the Pentagon specifically said they didn’t want or need. But they got built anyways.
There are important conversations that need to be had regarding many of the issues he has raised. But that’s not going to happen because it’s easier to just say he wants to give people free stuff or call him a communist.
I love that Bernie gets the conservatives panties in a bunch. The fact that he pisses them off is good enough for me.
Sound familiar?
From what I read it was a tax on speculations and derivatives which is hopefully not where people have their retirement fundings. There’s no reason to go after people’s mutual funds though.
We bailed out Wall Street and the big banks. Now it’s their turn to return the favor.
Lenders knew how to weed out the bums. But they packaged those loans with the safer bets and sold the debt as a package so it was in their best interest to give as many loans as possible.
Deregulating Wall Street is never a good idea.
Deregulation isn't always a bad thing.
k... but, that really wasn't in the scenario he proposed. He wanted his tax money to go to "defense" rather than a 7th child of a welfare mother.I’d rather people who can’t afford kids to not have them. I’d rather people take responsibility for their life choices.
Dude... deregulating Wall Street? This whole economic system is a stack of teacups as it is.Deregulation isn't always a bad thing.
According to what you are saying here, build that wall! Hell yeahk... but, that really wasn't in the scenario he proposed. He wanted his tax money to go to "defense" rather than a 7th child of a welfare mother.
I think (I hope) it's a universal preference for wanting "people to take responsibility for their life choices." Especially if you ask them on an individual basis. Wanting others to do it is easy. Making sure YOU do it is hard!
I wish EVERYONE would have fewer children. Whether they can afford them or not. One, or two, at the very most... replacement value. That's all you ever need. One of my best friends, I've known him for 30 years now! He has SEVEN kids... it's like The Waltons! Dude, kids don't die of measles and smallpox anymore. You don't have a family farm to tend. It's not the 18th and 19th centuries. And, he will always say "I can provide for them and raise them properly." That's all well and good, but we don't need those numbers! Those 7 could become 50 in one generation! And, we DEFINITELY don't need those kinds of numbers. Whenever the subject of reproduction comes up, and if it's ever suggested that "we have a cap on the number of kids a couple can have", I'm not entirely opposed to it. As much as that infringes on "Liberty"- and it does- I just don't think our priorities and the basis for our culture is really going to be able to sustain these numbers.
Really? Explain how you gleaned Build A Wall from me encouraging people to have fewer children. Do walls lower sperm counts?According to what you are saying here, build that wall! Hell yeah
Wall Street has never been over regulated. Every republican that has deregulated them has screwed the economy. Yet we keep doing this stupid cycle over and over again.
Dude... deregulating Wall Street? This whole economic system is a stack of teacups as it is.
It’s all about the kids.The last estimates I read were around a 1500 dollar increase.
Single payer and tuition free public universities is hardly “free everything.” The welfare queen stereotyoe is also kind of silly. There’s no evidence that a significant portion of welfare recipients are abusing the system. I’d rather not have kids going hungry because of some right wing talking point that has little basis in reality. Even the welfare queen’s kids shouldn’t be going hungry.
The money isn’t all being spent on actually defending this country. Huge sums of money go to ridiculously bloated no bid contracts and outdated weapons and technology. There are huge parking lots full of tanks that the Pentagon specifically said they didn’t want or need. But they got built anyways.
There are important conversations that need to be had regarding many of the issues he has raised. But that’s not going to happen because it’s easier to just say he wants to give people free stuff or call him a communist.
Right... but, I said Wall Street, specifically. I think even uncboy said Wall Street. And, please don't act like the Democrats single-handedly caused the 2008 crash. Why even say "don't forget about the Democrats contribution?" Of course they contributed to it! These two parties love to buddy-up and feast on the 99%. The theater of opposition works like a charm. Don't muddle-up regulation with regulating EVERYTHING.You can't just make a broad comment like "deregulation is bad". It depends on what specific regulation you're talking about.
Oh, I see. So now you’re the ‘too many kids’ police.k... but, that really wasn't in the scenario he proposed. He wanted his tax money to go to "defense" rather than a 7th child of a welfare mother.
I think (I hope) it's a universal preference for wanting "people to take responsibility for their life choices." Especially if you ask them on an individual basis. Wanting others to do it is easy. Making sure YOU do it is hard!
I wish EVERYONE would have fewer children. Whether they can afford them or not. One, or two, at the very most... replacement value. That's all you ever need. One of my best friends, I've known him for 30 years now! He has SEVEN kids... it's like The Waltons! Dude, kids don't die of measles and smallpox anymore. You don't have a family farm to tend. It's not the 18th and 19th centuries. And, he will always say "I can provide for them and raise them properly." That's all well and good, but we don't need those numbers! Those 7 could become 50 in one generation! And, we DEFINITELY don't need those kinds of numbers. Whenever the subject of reproduction comes up, and if it's ever suggested that "we have a cap on the number of kids a couple can have", I'm not entirely opposed to it. As much as that infringes on "Liberty"- and it does- I just don't think our priorities and the basis for our culture is really going to be able to sustain these numbers.
Right... but, I said Wall Street, specifically. I think even uncboy said Wall Street. And, please don't act like the Democrats single-handedly caused the 2008 crash. Why even say "don't forget about the Democrats contribution?" Of course they contributed to it! These two parties love to buddy-up and feast on the 99%. The theater of opposition works like a charm. Don't muddle-up regulation with regulating EVERYTHING.
If you want people to reproduce less you must want to curb illegal immigration. Less people right? Curb immigration problem solved.According to what you are saying here, build that wall! Hell yeah
I'm not talking about where they live, or where they end up living. I mean, AS A SECIES, humans need to stop reproducing so much. It doesn't matter where they're located.If you want people to reproduce less you must want to curb illegal immigration. Less people right? Curb immigration problem solved.
I'm not policing anything or anyone. I'm strongly encouraging people to quit having so many kids.Oh, I see. So now you’re the ‘too many kids’ police.
You sound like the dems last night. Flip flop much?I'm not talking about where they live, or where they end up living. I mean, AS A SECIES, humans need to stop reproducing so much. It doesn't matter where they're located.
On behalf of everyone with a brain, thank you for not reproducing.I'm not policing anything or anyone. I'm strongly encouraging people to quit having so many kids.
You can make the statement, you just need to clarify. What do you want Wall Street to be completely unfettered to do as they want with no oversight?Yeah, I'm talking about Wall Street. How about this:
You can't just make a broad comment like "all Wall Street deregulation is bad". It depends on what specific regulation you're talking about.
Well, I didn't watch them, either. You attempted to pull some kind of correlation that was never suggested or even implied, and tried to use it as some cornerstone of my entire statement... which it isn't. You're a walking Fox-News-Right-Wing talking point bullhorn. Illegal immigrants are the enemy for you. That has not one damned thing to do with what I said. I would encourage people EVERYWHERE to quit shitting-out so many kids. I don't give a damn where they live now or wind-up living later on. Fewer of us doesn't mean I am wanting people to stay out of other countries.You sound like the dems last night. Flip flop much?
When you said you were talking to a friend I didn't understand he was in Zimbabwe. I figured maybe he was a neighbor therefore he lived in the United States. After all the discussion in this thread is based in America. So from now on clarify your 'Merica comments vs your Globalist views.Well, I didn't watch them, either. You attempted to pull some kind of correlation that was never suggested or even implied, and tried to use it as some cornerstone of my entire statement... which it isn't. You're a walking Fox-News-Right-Wing talking point bullhorn. Illegal immigrants are the enemy for you. That has not one damned thing to do with what I said. I would encourage people EVERYWHERE to quit shitting-out so many kids. I don't give a damn where they live now or wind-up living later on. Fewer of us doesn't mean I am wanting people to stay out of other countries.
You sound like the dems last night. Flip flop much?
This is an emotional topic for many, I suppose. I have a very negative reaction to some sort of cap on number of kids people can have (though I do think they should be financially able to support their own kids). A "child cap" makes me think of some of the practices of China of forced abortions or infanticide if more than one child ( or a child of the wrong sex) is born to a mother,Well, I didn't watch them, either. You attempted to pull some kind of correlation that was never suggested or even implied, and tried to use it as some cornerstone of my entire statement... which it isn't. You're a walking Fox-News-Right-Wing talking point bullhorn. Illegal immigrants are the enemy for you. That has not one damned thing to do with what I said. I would encourage people EVERYWHERE to quit shitting-out so many kids. I don't give a damn where they live now or wind-up living later on. Fewer of us doesn't mean I am wanting people to stay out of other countries.
You can make the statement, you just need to clarify. What do you want Wall Street to be completely unfettered to do as they want with no oversight?
I always wonder how Fox News is still in business, then this board reminds me.
It's always entertaining to watch you lecture people about painting with a broad brush...then watch you paint with a broad brush.
That's a pretty narrow brush actually.
Remind me why you're even here again?
After 2 close calls in a past relationship, I got it fixed. You're welcome. If you do it my way, then everyone has a seat on the lifeboat!On behalf of everyone with a brain, thank you for not reproducing.
What difference does it make where he lives? I'm not always on a default setting "We Only Think And Speak In The Context Of Being American." I'll try harder to meet your requirementsWhen you said you were talking to a friend I didn't understand he was in Zimbabwe. I figured maybe he was a neighbor therefore he lived in the United States. After all the discussion in this thread is based in America. So from now on clarify your 'Merica comments vs your Globalist views.
And I have 4 kids and 5 grandkids so GFY.
How is Wall Street being improperly restrained?I thought the fact that we were talking about Wall Street was clear enough, but I digress. No, I don't want Wall Street to be free from regulations. Good regulations help protect the consumer. However, needless regulations are a hindrance. You can't just say "regulations are good" or "regulations are bad". You have to talk about the individual regulations.
How is Wall Street being improperly restrained?
"nctransplant and NoleSoup4U like this."
"nctransplant and NoleSoup4U like this."
You're the latter, correct? I already brought it up in your Likes thread.