birdog1960

different argument. Bernie is not telling gigot or maddow to stfu. he's not inciting violence. he's not offering legal fees for supporters punching protestors. and he's not going to win his party's nomination. trump is doing or is going to do all of these things. oh, and Bernie is speaking truth or at the very least what he truly believes to be the truth. trump is certainly not. by appealing repeatedly to the lowest common denominator and the most base instincts and emotions, the right wing talking heads have slowly and systematically enabled him. now they're upset. wah!!!....

well said....and yet to the anarchists here, trump is a phenomenon borne of Obama's presidency. nope, it's borne from misplaced anger from those mostly disenfranchised ex middle class folks whose financial lives trump would mostly make even worse. the only candidates that would likely help these folks stop their downward spiral would be the last candidates these people would generally support. but reasoning is generally not the strong suit of this group. they do anger very well, however. this is the natural consequence of a republican party drawn further and further right over many years by dangerous, self promoting zealots.

the problem is that the inmates have actually come to believe they can run the asylum. I don't think any reasonable person can ignore that fact. as i said, there is a precedent and it didn't go very well until reasonably sane people regained control. yes.: 2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

yes. I keep reading about near riots at Bernie events. why am I not surprised?

right. trump is not divisive at all. he's a unifier! much of the civilized world is anxious about his chances. there's historical precedent for that.

remember the good ole days when a candidate calling someone "meccaca" on the campaign trail caused him to lose? in Virginia.. I miss those days. they weren't too long ago. America has literally gone to the dogs and they're not nice, pretty, well behaved labs and retrievers. they're viscous and undisciplined pit bulls that are too easily riled up..

he kicked her butt. he's pandering to no one. this debate convinced me that he is acting as a gadfly just as socrates described. he's illuminating the hypocrisy of pretty much every other candidate while speaking the truth capably. he's a very intelligent man. i don't think anyone can honestly dispute that. bravo bernie!

sounds eerily familiar: http://screencrush.com/snl-and-jacob-the-bar-mitzvah-boy-explain-the-story-of-passover/

trump or sanders? this is what the current rcp numbers look like: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html how bout the ppp numbers? i'm guessing 4 or 5 to 1 trump. but lets see.

so far we've unwiingly

nope. but that appears to be a concession to my point.

yeah. i'm thinking that's not a ringing endorsement for your investment services. i always thought most of the big players in your field are cokeheads.

ever seen mr smith goes to washington? it's about principles. berrnie's' got em. but he can't change things alone. being prez would give him the bully pulpit to shine a spotlight on all the graft. he's straight talking and not just pretending to be by being a jerk.

very nice article in bloomberg business. in essence: Bernie Sanders is more an idea than a person. An idea does not need to comb its hair. An idea can get away with skipping the task that occupies so much of most politicians’ time—phoning the rich to ask for money—by instead writing fundraising letters, which contain words that make people with money anxious, like “oligarchy.” An idea can give speeches filled with so many statistics and numbers that they’re really just white papers with hand gestures. Bernie Sanders is not a leader so much as a messenger. And his message can fit on a Post-it note: The rich are screwing you. yes, they are.

“Social networks can facilitate relationships and promote the good of society, but they can also lead to further polarization and division between individuals and groups,” Francis writes. “The digital world is a public square, a meeting-place where we can either encourage or demean one another, engage in a meaningful discussion or unfair attacks…Access to digital networks entails a responsibility for our neighbor whom we do not see but who is nonetheless real and has a dignity which must be respected.” remind me of this pope Francis quote whenever i engage one of you in internet battle. time to turn a new leaf.

wow. there really are other nutbags that believe this drivel outside of ppp. one of em writes for American conservative. too bad that scotus disagrees.

just wondering where the basis for legality of seccesion originates and is based on. it seems many supreme court justices believe otherwise: that secession is illegal and unconstitutional. "Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position" full link here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/ perhaps one of the self appointed constitutional scholars here woulsd like a shot at debating Scalia's viewpoint on this?

it was lincoln's fault. the northerners shouldn't have elected him. they should have bowed to the traitors in the south that had no choice but to revolt as lee put it. the rest of the quote you cited is simply a lie proven by history. but that's what traitors do. you all are kooks. you are so far removed from conventional thought that if you we're to be correct on these ideas, you would be considered geniuses. unfortunately, you are not correct and thus should be judged village idiots. the amazing thing is that such radical departure from conventional thought is shared by so many on a single blog. or might that queer agreement be easily explained?

yes, because the sincerity and heartfelt depth of your question was so convincing...

sorry. i don't respond to demands from those to whom i feel no obligation or concern. make your demands to someone that you feel might, sport.

i think it's less urgent than the monuments being discussed. prioritize. you mean when you talk to yourself?

umm, i've decided. i don't find him honorable at all. on the other hand, he wasn't a traitor. so there's that.

jefferson's immoral acts have been appropriately and widely publicized recently. people can decide for themselves about the honor of his heritage. a major difference between him and the confederates being discussed here is that he didn't fight a war against his own country over slavery. perhaps fortunately for him, that wasn't a choice he had to make.

i lived in louisiana during integration. do you remember integration in western new york? anywhere in former union states? me neither.