• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Dem Presidential Debate

Bernie calls himself a 'democratic socialist'

Free everything for everyone - the working man capitalists will pay for it all, of course
 
Stewey said:
and how many times does Hillary have to remind everyone that shes a woman?

QUOTE]

Gonna take at least a few more times 'cause I still ain't buyin' it.

Steelerlyn said:
Was reading a post of a cousin of mine on FB last night. He asked how Bernie Sanders planned on paying for the free college he promised. He used the example of Cal Berkely and USC. The combined enrollment of the two schools is close to 100,000 students. It would cost 6.8 BILLION dollars to pay for the "free education" for all those students. AT TWO SCHOOLS. Now he didn't say if it was 6.8 billion a year, but think about that for a minute. 6.8 BILLION for 100,000 students. I shudder to think of the total cost for every student.

He also didn't use a FB meme to prove his point- he calculated it out himself and based it on the costs THIS YEAR for a student.
Click to expand...

Nahhh.....the gubmint will just conscript teachers to work for free......unless you have $30,000.00 to buy your way out of conscription. Or you can have your negro serve in your place.

Spike said:
Bernie calls himself a 'democratic socialist'

Free everything for everyone - the working man capitalists will pay for it all, of course
Click to expand...

That title is redundant....is there really any difference?
Click to expand...
 
A buddy of mine, who once ran for Congress, and is still active in the political arena, posted this on Facebook.

All we have to do is quote the Democratic candidates. They wholly agree, Obamanomics have been terrible. We have a terrible economy.

But Hitlery says she wants to continue more of the same, to perpetuate Obama's plan. Shaking my damn head.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-say-the-economy-stinks-1444863161

Democrats Say the Economy Stinks
The candidates agree the middle class is suffering after seven Obama years.

The end of a two-term Presidency is typically a time for taking credit, celebrating achievements and promising to continue successful policies. So what happened to the Obama Democrats?

At Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, not one of the five candidates even attempted to defend the results of President Obama’s economic policies. Instead their blistering critiques of the status quo showed they all agree on at least one point: Today’s economy is a disaster for hard-working Americans.

As might be expected, self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders was the Gloomiest Gus. Any chance he got, the Vermont Senator waxed on about the terrible and “rigged” U.S. economy and how bad things are for anyone save those fat cats on Wall Street.

“I think most Americans understand that our country today faces a series of unprecedented crises,” he said in one of his many Dickensian riffs. “The middle class of this country for the last 40 years has been disappearing. Millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, and yet almost all of the new income and wealth being created is going to the top one percent.”

You’d think someone might have taken issue with that, but the other candidates agreed that Americans are in misery after seven years of Obamanomics. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley was nearly as blue as Bernie. “What I’m talking about is this, our middle class is shrinking. Our poor families are becoming poorer, and 70% of us are earning the same, or less, than we were 12 years ago. We need new leadership, and we need action.”

New leadership? What does this say about Mr. Obama?

Hillary Clinton said she didn’t want to throw out capitalism, but she did say that “I think what Senator Sanders is saying certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have.” She added that inequality “hasn’t been this bad since the 1920s.” Her solution isn’t to try something new but to emulate Mr. Obama’s policies and then “go further” in raising taxes, imposing more regulations and beating up the drug and insurance companies.

Lincoln Chafee awakened from irrelevance to say that he would make also it a priority to “close the gap between the haves and have-nots.” Later he was more specific, claiming that he would soak the “0.6 percent of Americans” at the “top echelon” who are doing fine, to “help the middle class and hard-working Americans,” who are not.

All of this amounts to a searing indictment of what was supposed to be a transformational Democratic Presidency. So even as they painted scenes of an economy that could have been ripped from “Les Miserables,” the candidates were at pains to let Mr. Obama off the hook for these results.

Mr. O’Malley explained that the President shouldn’t be held accountable for today’s economy because he’s not a “magician.” And no Democratic Party debate would be complete without blaming a Republican Congress for blocking even more Obama spending and regulation, not to mention that old standby, “the Bush tax cuts”—though they were enacted more than 12 years ago and were long ago erased by Mr. Obama’s tax increases.

Look past the pro forma Republican bashing, and Tuesday’s message is stark: After nearly seven years of Barack Obama in the White House, America’s working families are struggling in an economy with fewer good jobs, stagnant paychecks, growing inequality and a system that rewards billionaires while hard-working Average Joes are left behind.

And this is the Democratic talking point. If Republicans want to make the case against Obamanomics, they can start by quoting Democrats.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Burgundy said:
If the GOP manages to nominate Bush (I'm active in Republican circles at the county and state level and I know NO ONE who wants Jeb), I assure you the Libertarian candidate whoever that will be, will receive a record number of votes.
Click to expand...

Don't bet on it. Those who even suggest voting Libertarian will be blasted as closet Hillary fans, because they won't vote FOR their piece of **** the RNC nominates.
 
MT~Forged said:
Don't bet on it. Those who even suggest voting Libertarian will be blasted as closet Hillary fans, because they won't vote FOR their piece of **** the RNC nominates.
Click to expand...

The GOP needs to give us someone we will vote for then, unlike the last two candidates.
 
Speaking of Democratic Socialists


Adolf Hitler’s Manifesto ‘Mein Kampf’ To Return To German Bookstores

For the first time in decades, Adolf Hitler’s manifesto, “Mein Kampf,” is making a return to bookstores, NBC News reports.

A historical research center in Munich, the Institute of Contemporary History (IFZ), will publish a new annotated version of the manifesto in January.

The decision to publish Mein Kampf is arising because the copyright on the book is about to expire.

79054643-e1438009739913.jpg



http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/15/adolf-hitlers-manifesto-mein-kampf-to-return-to-german-bookstores/
 
MT~Forged said:
I know you do not believe that will happen, I sure as hell don't.
Click to expand...


Trump, baby! Use your common sense. He's for lower taxes, allowing people to keep more of what they EARNED. He's for slashing wasteful spending to fund said tax cuts. He's going to take care of our vets and invest in our military. He's going to keep ISIS out of our country. He should win this election in a landslide as long as people still have some brain cells.
 
MT~Forged said:
I know you do not believe that will happen, I sure as hell don't.
Click to expand...

it's up to us in the primaries. Well, maybe not me because it's usually over by the time PA has their primary. That's when I do things like write-in Alan Keyes ('00, '04) and Ron Paul ('08, '12).
 
21STEELERS21 said:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/competent

She is competent. A President can't do much on their own, she will bring bright people in to run the government.
She is likely to run it better than anyone has and might even reduce taxes thru efficiency.

When she was Senator of New York, she went to one of the poorer areas of New York, the Adirondacks, and she
got small businesses assistance with using the internet. It helped my cousins restaurant significantly and boosted
tourism. The Clintons see problems, apply intelligence and work toward solutions. Both actually have worked well
with Republicans. Most Republican Senators that served with her, have good things to say.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on a real answer. You are exactly like those "On The Street Interviews" where the interviewee looks like a fool trying to answer the question "Name some of Hillary's accomplishments as Secretary of State." I gave you Secretary of State, First Lady, etc...more ground to play with. And you can't give any real answers...just that people had favorable things to say about her.

I feel badly for you though, because you can't win. See, it's a trick question. She has no accomplishments, not a single one anyone can point to. You lose the minute you admit to being willing to answer the question.
 
IndySteel said:
Trump, baby! Use your common sense. He's for lower taxes, allowing people to keep more of what they EARNED. He's for slashing wasteful spending to fund said tax cuts. He's going to take care of our vets and invest in our military. He's going to keep ISIS out of our country. He should win this election in a landslide as long as people still have some brain cells.
Click to expand...

I don't know if Trump as President will ever accomplish anything, but I do know that his ego will make him want to be remembered as the BEST president we ever had. That alone means that he will at least TRY to get things accomplished.
 
Tim Steelersfan said:
I'm still waiting on a real answer. You are exactly like those "On The Street Interviews" where the interviewee looks like a fool trying to answer the question "Name some of Hillary's accomplishments as Secretary of State." I gave you Secretary of State, First Lady, etc...more ground to play with. And you can't give any real answers...just that people had favorable things to say about her.

I feel badly for you though, because you can't win. See, it's a trick question. She has no accomplishments, not a single one anyone can point to. You lose the minute you admit to being willing to answer the question.
Click to expand...
she helped a child rapist beat his charge.
thus, she performed her job under mitigating circumstances, and did so marvelously.
 
Hillary Clinton: Australia Gun Ban "Worth Looking At" In U.S.




yep, registration is the first step to confiscation - at least now you know what they mean by "common sense gun control"
 
When your Secretary of State doing your job is an accomplishment. The position isn't designed to create great change.
It's for maintaining relationships. The status quo is generally good. If your going to blame her for not solving the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, then you need to blame all the other secretary of states before her as well.
 
21STEELERS21 said:
When your Secretary of State doing your job is an accomplishment. The position isn't designed to create great change.
It's for maintaining relationships. The status quo is generally good. If your going to blame her for not solving the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, then you need to blame all the other secretary of states before her as well.
Click to expand...

Strawman much? Nobody is blaming her for Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are blaming her for her role in the killing of 4 Americans in Libya, her approval of the Arab Spring and her bumbling of the entire ME including Egypt and Syria. Then you have her putting out memos telling the entire dept. that they can't use private e-mails for public use. She then has her own private server which has on it classified e-mails. Her inner circle knew of this and were using their own "Clinton" e-mail accounts. She's a hypocritical, dishonest, slimy, *****, liar. Anybody that votes for her are nothing but drones that would vote for satan if they had a D by their name. She has accomplished nothing in her entire life. Other than being totally disqualified to be SOS and President. She couldn't handle the SOS job and was a total disaster.
 
She had no role in the killing of 4 Americans, she doesn't even own a gun. lol
From my understanding of Benghazi the Security Dept within the State Dept
was the one responsible and the reason more security wasn't provided there
was that resources were allocated elsewhere. The State Dept is rather big and has
limited budgets, its a judgment call where resources get allocated. If more resources were
devoted to Benghazi, then less were devoted elsewhere and Americans could be killed elsewhere.

I'm not sure anyone in Egypt asked Hilary for permission to overthrow Mubarak and like wise in Syria.
The Middle East has been pretty much a mess, like forever. The big difference today is dictators have
or are being overthrown. I wonder where they got that idea? Hint Saddam Hussein.
 
21STEELERS21 said:
She had no role in the killing of 4 Americans, she doesn't even own a gun. lol
From my understanding of Benghazi the Security Dept within the State Dept
was the one responsible and the reason more security wasn't provided there
was that resources were allocated elsewhere. The State Dept is rather big and has
limited budgets, its a judgment call where resources get allocated. If more resources were
devoted to Benghazi, then less were devoted elsewhere and Americans could be killed elsewhere.

I'm not sure anyone in Egypt asked Hilary for permission to overthrow Mubarak and like wise in Syria.
The Middle East has been pretty much a mess, like forever. The big difference today is dictators have
or are being overthrown. I wonder where they got that idea? Hint Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

The same Hussein that she voted to throw out? You can spin it all you want to but the fact remains that she is a lying *****. Using your logic nobody in high levels of government are to blame for anything. It's always too big and it's someone else's fault. She didn't read the cables, she lied about the "video" when she knew damn well it had nothing to do with it, then she tried to wipe (not using a towel) her server before the feds could look at it. Where else could they have been killed? Germany? England? France? It's just non-sense. Libya was a hot spot for terrorism against western powers. They tried to killed the British ambassador not long before they killed Stephens. Allocation of resources to that area was vital because everybody else had LEFT because it was unstable. Where else to spend the resources if you are going to stay? It was a stupid decision.

Now to the ME. Again you can always say "yea, it's always been bad". But that's just obfuscation and flat out bullshit. During the past administration you didn't have MILLIONS of refuges flooding into Europe and trying to come to America. You didn't have ISIS taking over Iraq and parts so Syria. You didn't have Russia rushing in because of a power vacuum left by the U.S. They didn't need permission they got tacit approval by her inaction. Plus her and Obama said they were all for it. Now they are living with the consequences of their ill informed and flaccid reactions.
 
21STEELERS21 said:
She had no role in the killing of 4 Americans, she doesn't even own a gun. lol
From my understanding of Benghazi the Security Dept within the State Dept
was the one responsible and the reason more security wasn't provided there
was that resources were allocated elsewhere. The State Dept is rather big and has
limited budgets, its a judgment call where resources get allocated. If more resources were
devoted to Benghazi, then less were devoted elsewhere and Americans could be killed elsewhere.

I'm not sure anyone in Egypt asked Hilary for permission to overthrow Mubarak and like wise in Syria.
The Middle East has been pretty much a mess, like forever. The big difference today is dictators have
or are being overthrown. I wonder where they got that idea? Hint Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...


seems we had a large military force over in that area for awhile until your dumbshit community organizer decided to remove them. maybe he should have had them devoted to American embassies to secure them prior to closing them?

I still want to know when your goddamn New York Times Bestseller is hitting the shelves.

and, even more importantly, why your ******* text is always left-justified.
 
21STEELERS21 said:
She had no role in the killing of 4 Americans, she doesn't even own a gun. lol
From my understanding of Benghazi the Security Dept within the State Dept
was the one responsible and the reason more security wasn't provided there
was that resources were allocated elsewhere. The State Dept is rather big and has
limited budgets, its a judgment call where resources get allocated. If more resources were
devoted to Benghazi, then less were devoted elsewhere and Americans could be killed elsewhere.

I'm not sure anyone in Egypt asked Hilary for permission to overthrow Mubarak and like wise in Syria.
The Middle East has been pretty much a mess, like forever. The big difference today is dictators have
or are being overthrown. I wonder where they got that idea? Hint Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

Well.....I AM sure that the Embassy in Libya ASKED for more security. And how do you defend the entire admin (including hitlery) blaming a video?
 
Rod Farva said:
Well.....I AM sure that the Embassy in Libya ASKED for more security. And how do you defend the entire admin (including hitlery) blaming a video?
Click to expand...

Because Bomma won't let anyone in the government speak ill of Islam.

Eric Holder looking like a fool:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top