| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Iirc the only candidate that voted to invade Iraq is Hillary. To be fair, history shows she was right. Saddam had lots of poison gas, just like she told us. She thought it was a good idea to free the Iraqi people from tyranny, &she was right. Bush made a hash of the peace, and Obama threw it away. Um, wasn't Hillary supposed to fix all that? Or is it only fair to blame her boss? | ||
| Sifo |
At this point, what difference does it make? Seriously, though, this is an election not a trial. Why would you support someone in a presidential election who is in the middle of an investigation that could lead to conviction? At best you have someone who is again engaged in obstruction of justice. It's a pattern with the Clintons. Bill had his law licence suspended for it. He was never "found guilty" of it though. Is someone really going to argue his innocence? If you do, expect people to laugh in your face. | ||
| Aesquire |
A note about the "innocent" film maker. I only sat through 5 minutes of his 14+ minute crud, then jumped forward for a few more minutes before skipping the rest. FWIW, the parts I saw were historically accurate, that is they followed the Koran. BTW, if anyone ever did do a movie of the life of The Prophet, pretty much everyone would hate it. And he'd get torn limb from limb. That's if he followed the book. He'd just be burned alive if he cleaned it up enough to not freak out American audiences. So, Hillary told the families of the slain that they would put this guy in prison. So they very publicly arrested him with live tv coverage, and sent him off for parole violations. nearly a year. Then released him into protective custody, since Obama & Hillary's and Rice's ( and and ) lies made him a dead man on the street. Was that fair? Not really. He probably was guilty of parole violations, since he scammed a bunch of people making his little movie trailer. ( it wasn't a whole movie, just a trailer for an imaginary film he had no chance to get a budget for ) The problem is, he scammed his actors. The dialog spoken, I am told, had nothing to do with the Prophet. He dubbed the incendiary stuff in post. This guy endangered those people, by putting them in a possibly honest minifilm about Mohammed without their consent. And now they have no recourse, and their lives are in danger. Obama is also responsible for putting them all in danger. Without his using this film as a prop, very few people would have noticed it. I was told only 400 odd views before Barry used it. Used as an excuse, and a reason to threaten everyone who dares speak ill of the Prophet. I don't know if there is any possibility of conviction on this, but Dante does describe where that takes a person. | ||
| Sifo |
So Tod, any idea what this picture is all about? Just wondering?  | ||
| Reepicheep |
The email server was created as a personally owned server that she had total control over specifically so she could avoid following the law. She was clearly using it from day one to do state department business. Remember the "lost IRS records" on Clinton enemies that were used to attack their opponents? The ones that ended up being found in a white house closet, covered with Hillary fingerprints? Nah... nobody would ever politically weaponize the IRS. With regards to Iraq, I've come a long way in terms of position. I no longer feel like an invasion was necessarily the only path. I now feel like both invasion and "everything else we have thought of or tried" all lead to awful outcomes... which maybe means invasion was the wrong path. Not because it wasn't the right thing to do in the circumstances (it probably was), but just because it won't work. | ||
| Sifo |
Somehow this seems fitting at the moment...  | ||
| Court |
The Clintons are criminals. When and if they will ever be convicted is up in the air. I know rich folks who buy their kids' way into Bard and Harvard. I suspect the Clinton's are rich enough to purchase, and tease for, some selective oversight from less intellectual minions like Eric Holder and company. | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
Margret Thatcher put it best... But the math is simple. If the Average family makes $45k a year ( it was closer to $50k, before Obama ) and you take all the money in taxes, and distribute it evenly, every family will have about $9k, a year. ( currently about 78% of every Federal tax dollar earmarked for social programs goes to supporting the bureaucracy, not going to the recipient,....22% throughput. If you fired most of the Government, that might climb to 35% throughput, but with millions more unemployed, it probably would drop ) It makes zero difference how you imagine a fair redistribution would work, today less than a third of the budget goes to Defense, another less than a third goes to roads & bridges & the bureaucracy, and the more than a third that goes to social programs can be ignored... so average dole of $8k? We might get that up to $9k if we gave up Defense, and had another United States to protect us, like Europe. Which, ( see Greece ) already ran out of other people's money. Feel free to run the numbers yourself. Even if the throughput is 50%, which I can't believe, that's still $20k. Instantly the whole mess is below the poverty line. | ||
| Aesquire |
And then there's the Pilgrim's Lesson. When the Plymouth Colony was founded by a radical Commune Christian sect, they nearly wiped themselves out, since "fair & equal redistribution" means the hard working people have no incentive to work hard. I know the idiot right wing talk show hosts keep telling us that Welfare with all the trimmings, pays $35k ( or so ) a year. Not exactly true. That would require you qualify for every single program and can take advantage of them, not likely. But if it actually DID? Why should you work? And... if no one works, there is no one to pay for the welfare. Why is this simple fact ignored?..... Oh, yeah, it would mean less vote buying on other people's credit. | ||
| Tod662 |
"Here is the reality of the American economy. Despite an explosion in technology and a huge increase in worker productivity, the middle class of this country continues its 40-year decline. Today, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages and median family income is almost $5,000 less than it was in 1999. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. Today, 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent, while the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 40 percent. In the last two years, the wealthiest 14 people in this country increased their wealth by $157 billion. That increase is more than is owned by the bottom 130 million Americans -- combined. Over the last 40 years, the largest corporations in this country have closed thousands of factories in the United States and outsourced millions of American jobs to low-wage countries overseas. That is why we need a new trade policy and why I am opposed to the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership now before Congress. Large corporations and their lobbyists have created loopholes enabling corporations to avoid an estimated $100 billion a year in taxes by shifting profits to the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens. That is why we need real tax reform which demands that the very wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. Corporate America has mounted vigorous anti-union campaigns, making it harder for workers to collectively bargain for decent wages and benefits. That is why we must make certain that workers are given a fair chance to join a union. As a result of the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, corporations and the very wealthy are now spending billions to elect candidates who will represent their interests. That is why we need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections. Instead of putting resources into innovative ways to build their businesses or hire new employees, corporations are pumping 98 percent of their record-breaking profits into buying back their own stock and increasing dividends to benefit their executives and wealthy shareholders at the expense of their workers. It is a major reason why CEOs are now making nearly 300 times what the typical worker makes. We have got to demand that corporations stop manipulating their shares to reward their executives and billionaire shareholders through the use of stock buybacks. We also must do a lot more to rebuild the middle class, check corporate greed and make our economy work again for working families. We need to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next several years. With 70 percent of the economy dependent on consumers buying goods and services, the best way to expand the economy is to raise wages and create good jobs to increase the purchasing power of the American people. We need to create millions of decent-paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; our roads, bridges, dams, rail, airports, levees and dams. We need to pass pay equity for women workers. It is not acceptable that women receive 78 cents on the dollar compared to male workers doing the same job. We need to end the scandal of companies taking advantage of outdated rules to avoid paying overtime to "supervisors" -- often earning less than $30,000 a year -- when they clock 50 or 60 hours a week on the job. We need to make certain that every worker in this country receives guaranteed paid sick leave and vacation time. We need to encourage business models that provide employees the tools to purchase their own businesses through Employee Stock Ownership Plans and worker-owned cooperatives. Workers at employee-owned companies are more motivated, productive and satisfied with their jobs. It is time to say loudly and clearly that corporate greed and the war against the American middle class must end. Enough is enough!" The Hero America needs: BERNIESANDERS As we are the greatest country ever shouldn't that fact be shown statistically for WE THE PEOPLE? Germany the biggest economy in Europe is more socialist then Greece who has had a central right government for most of the last 20 plus years. | ||
| Sifo |
Happy Independence Day! Try to remember what it's all about, but have a good time and stay safe. Somehow, I'm not really surprised to see Tod quoting a flaming socialist. | ||
| Aesquire |
He just pasted a campaign ad. Fair enough. He would have done the same 77 years ago for the National Socialist Workers Party. These groups can't get power without ignorant fools. | ||
| Aesquire |
Since I agree with several of the complaints Bernie makes above, I have to point out that his party has dominated congress the last fifty plus years and given us the injustices he rails against. I also have to ask which bad things he voted for after getting bribed to do so? SOP is to create a crisis to take advantage of. Like Obama care is the means to destroy private health care and give us the crisis that only Socialism can solve. ( with death camps.... but that comes later ) | ||
| Strokizator |
Have a good holiday, Tod. Your vote for Bernie has as much value as my vote for a republican in California - you feel right with yourself for casting your vote according to your conscience but in the end you know it was a futile gesture. I'm going out this 4th and have a 5th. | ||
| Court |
A good deal of the information in that ad is so inaccurate that it casts question on those who subscribe to that sort of drivel. | ||
| Aesquire |
Let's see... First paragraph. Most of the reduction in wages has been since Nancy Peolosi took the gavel. so the 1999 date is wrong. Second. Pretty much B.S. except it is true that if you bribed Obama you made out. Since only rich people bribe Obama..... Third. More or less true. I'm also against the Pacific Union. ( hey, a stopped analog clock is right twice a day ) Fourth. Half truth. And "fair" is such a nice word to use to lie, isn't it? If they put in a flat tax with fewer deductions, then yes, that would be fair-er. Again, Bribing politicians if good business. Isn't Bernie a politician? Fifth. B.S. Anyone can join a Union. The other way around isn't true in many places and jobs. Being forced to pay Union dues is a fact of life for many Americans. Sith. Nearly pure B.S. I do support Bribery reform, but am iffy on public funding. In New York they decided to just take public funding from us without permission. Millions have been spent on the Governor's campaign ads. Seventh Seal. Again nearly pure B.S. And a massive distortion of how business and corporations are supposed to work. Eight. The "stock buyback" line is the natural response to the Laws Bernie voted for on taxes. He voted for bad laws with loopholes, some no doubt paid for by bribes, so it's his "fault" big businesses pay bonuses that way. Also a basic class envy hatred tactic by the Leftist. Ninth.. Sounds great... but it's spun sugar with taste but no substance. Tenth. Absolutely zero understanding of economics in this one. Zero relation to reality. Eleventh. Spun sugar... covering up the simple fact that we paid him to fix our roads and bridges, and they didn't do it. He deserves to be fired. He deserves to be flogged for B.S.ing us with that line. Oh, btw, After spending a TRILLION dollars to fix the road & bridges, what happened? Did it all go in bribes? Twelfth. I agree in principle, but probably not on any bill you put forward. . Why do you not point out that Hillary & Barry both pay their female staffers worse? Do you? Someone should check. Lucky Thirteen. I agree. Please throw out the Bad Laws you guys wrote. Did Bernie vote for those bad laws? Fourteen. Sounds good. Bernie has no idea making workers more expensive means you hire less of them, does he? Fifteen. I assume any rules unfriendly to starting such businesses comes from the party that takes the most money in bribes from Unions...Your party, your fault, Bernie. Sweet Sixteen. I completely agree. The rest is Tod's. I don't agree we need Bernie. But you feel free to. I can't even parse the next sentence. ? Germany more socialist than Greece? Interesting take. I'll let others dispute that one..... "center right" doesn't mean the same in Greece as it does here. I'm not sure any of the R candidates in the 2016 race count as center right, here. So, are you saying Socialism is Good, because Germany is more Socialist and is performing better? | ||
| Aesquire |
S trokizator, if you misread statistics then your vote is useless. Sure it's like a lottery, but elections have been won on small margins and you never know. Yes your vote in the presidential election in The People's Republic is not likely to be significant. But your vote in local and more important, primary elections can have a big influence. The parties that get votes in primaries get to play again. ... and your vote might mean the difference in which candidate you get to "waste" your vote on in the final. You also have to look at local rules. In New Hampshire Obama voters were able to choose the Republican candidate, which served their master well. In New York, you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered as. ( legally..... lots of fraud in NY ) So I have to choose, soon, if I want to vote against Hillary or Jeb. | ||
| Strokizator |
California is an "open primary" state, meaning that you can vote across party lines. Since Hillary is a lock, any number of registered democrats will then vote for the republican candidate least likely to win. Those votes then go to the national party conventions. I guess it's conceivable that democrats, in a rush to get Joe Schmoe on the republican ticket, forget that some of them need to vote for Hillary, but that's only hypothetical. I've been voting in Calif since 1976, and my vote has little value on national elections (except for congressional districts where my once staunchly republican area is slowly being eaten away). I might as well vote for Ralph Nader as for anyone else not the democrat nominee. | ||
| Aesquire |
Since Hillary is a lock, any number of registered democrats will then vote for the republican candidate least likely to win. That's my take on how John McCain got the nomination. In that case it was a push by the Obama campaign, knowing Hillary would win New Hampshire, went for the best R. From Obama's view. Speaking of Bernie & Socialism....... Running out of other people's money....and running out of people to take money from, Greece is having wide consequences, like the Chinese stock market dumping 50%. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/07/05/the -wonderful-wizard-of-oz/ Greece provides an object lesson in how bad government can ravage an economy and consequently, a country. Over the last 20 years governments have steered the Greek economy 180º away from the direction that increases growth and productivity, and they have stifled entrepreneurs. U.S. leaders are making similar moves to a disturbing extent. This is food for thought on the eve of our nation’s birthday. Everything seemed wonderful until it was exposed to be a fraud. In Greece, the world is at the moment similar to when Toto pulled aside the curtain on the Wizard of Oz. The Narrative of a bright European future has turned out to be one more cruel lie. Ironically, it took the unbridled fantasy of the Greek left to pull the curtain aside. Like Toto the dog, the Greeks did not understand the Narrative should not be tested too literally. They alone were feckless enough to really believe that the world could indefinitely live on other people’s money. In many other Western societies there is a subconscious awareness that socialism is a just a useful myth, like Santa Claus, not to be taken literally. A conservative Greek government could never have cast its bread upon the waters like the the believers of Syriza and cut the Gordian Knot as cleanly as they did. The Greek socialists believed in the EU. The EU pretended they could lend Greece money and the Greeks pretended they could pay it back. It may be unfair to blame it all on Greek Socialists. The EU is a fiction all it's own, a fake nation that takes power unto itself, for the Purpose of Having More Power. Like all grand con games, there is a part of the EU that is great sounding ideas. Being able to travel from country to country without all the old garbage of "papers please", for example, makes a lot of sense, especially in a land under Pax Americana for the last 70 years, where entire nations are the size of Western U.S. counties, and my idea of a pleasant day ride on a motorcycle covers all sides on entire World Wars. I spent my childhood taking vacations over longer distances than most Europeans traveled in a lifetime...including Knights on Crusade. I'm sure others can point out other grand things the EU has produced, I just can't think of any right now. | ||
| Aesquire |
I have no idea how this is going to work out. AFAIK, there has never been a situation quite like it. In some ways it's much like the start of WW1, with a tangle of inter-dependencies and treaties, and as then Russia is the Wild Card. There have been cities and provinces that became a mess based on bad economics, internal to a Nation State, and had to be taken over, purged, etc. The Soviet Union has many such tales, and there are some example here. Cities where parts of their governing function is temporarily, or not, taken over by State authority, Like school systems, or even city budgeting. ( where the real power is ) Internationally, European Colonial client states that needed propping up come to mind..... But in those cases the balance of Power was very lopsided, like the internal examples. In Colonial examples I see a lot of countries that just got dumped by the colonial power. And went to crap. ( or more to crap, according to their former overlords ) But. A lot of that happened after a major war bled the Dominant Power and they were cutting their losses. Europe as a group isn't going to go to war with Greece to collect their debts..( the old school way ) but if they just quit writing checks, Greece isn't going to go to war with them either. Greece may turn to Russia to prop them up. This will make the Americans and Europeans freak. BTFOM. Opinions? | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Tod662 |
"How many times have you heard the phrase, "I like Bernie Sanders, but he can't win," uttered by people who identify themselves as progressives? The facts, however, illustrate that "Bernie Sanders can win" and nobody in politics foreshadowed the Vermont Senator's latest surge in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He recently raised $15 million in just two months, and his campaign reports that "Nearly 87 percent of the total amount raised during the quarter came from the donors who contributed $250 or less." While Clinton's team isn't worried, they should be, primarily because Hillary Clinton already lost a presidential race (spending $229.4 million in the losing effort) and finished behind both Obama and John Edwards in the 2008 Iowa Caucus. While Clinton is expected to amass $2.5 billion, Bernie Sanders has cut the former Secretary of State's lead in New Hampshire from 38 percentage points down to just 8. According to a July 4th CNN article titled Sanders snags key endorsement in New Hampshire, Senator Sanders also gained a key ally: [ Wolfeboro, New Hampshire (CNN) Sen. Bernie Sanders has snagged a key endorsement in New Hampshire that may sting a little for Martin O'Malley's campaign. Longtime New Hampshire Democratic activist Dudley Dudley told CNN Friday that she has decided to endorse Bernie Sanders for the Democratic 2016 nomination. Since then, according to a recent CNN/WMUR New Hampshire primary poll, frontrunner Hillary Clinton's lead over Sanders has shrunk from 38 percentage points to 8, with O'Malley trailing both. Likely Democratic primary voters are now more apt to see Sanders as the candidate who "best represents the values of Democrats like yourself," the poll found.] It's important to note that Sanders didn't need billions of dollars to earn the trust of voters in New Hampshire, or cut Hillary's lead to only 8 points. Since he voted against the Iraq War and has spent a lifetime championing progressive issues while others waivered (Hillary was against gay marriage until 2013, voted for the Iraq War, pushed for the TPP on 45 separate occasions, and supported Keystone XL), Bernie Sanders doesn't need to prove he's a progressive. Voters know what they're getting with Vermont's Senator. In contrast, Hillary Clinton rarely offers a direct answer on why she failed to champion certain causes when they weren't popular. Therefore, it's still early and Election Day is 490 days away. If this were a football game, Team Bernie is on the opponent's 45 yard line, he's down by two scores, and it's only the first quarter. Sanders has time, and his recent surge in Iowa and New Hampshire shows that anything is possible. Although still trailing Clinton in Iowa, he's continuing to narrow the gap and has gone from 15 percent support in May to 33 percent support in July. What polls can't measure, however, is the numbers Sanders is drawing in overflowing crowds. A Washington Post article titled Sanders draws more than 2,500 to Iowa stop -- tops for this presidential cycle so far, explains how an energized base of voters is making what was once improbable a very real possibility: [ COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa -- Another day on the presidential campaign trail, another crowd of eye-popping size for Bernie Sanders. The independent senator from Vermont attracted more than 2,500 people to a convention center here on Friday night as part of his continued quest to lead a "political revolution" and win the Democratic nomination in a field that also includes Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was by far the largest draw in Iowa, the nation's first caucus state, by any White House hopeful this cycle -- though there were plenty of Sanders fans in the crowd who came across the river from Nebraska. ] Money can't buy enthusiasm or "eye popping crowds," and while Clinton has the financial backing (she's been referred to by POLITICO as Wall Street Republicans Dark secret), Bernie has the hearts and minds of Democrats. The Washington Post writes that he's gaining larger crowds than anyone in the 2016 presidential race, so while Clinton has the top Democratic strategists on her team, Bernie Sanders owns the grass roots support among voters. It's difficult to imagine Clinton, Bush or any other candidate matching the ability of Bernie Sanders to speak to a crowd of 10,000 people in Madison, Wisconsin. This impressive groundswell of support for Senator Sanders isn't simply a matter of ensuring Clinton leans more to the left in 2016. Not long ago, Bill Clinton once stated, "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen" regarding Obama's chances at becoming president (the uproar forced the former president to say "But I am not a racist, I've never made a racist comment and I never attacked him personally"), so fairytales sometimes do come true. Supporters of Bernie Sanders are doing everything from starting entire Reddit threads and social media campaigns to creating Bernie TV, so what the campaign is lacking in big donors, it's more than making up in genuine enthusiasm and energy. As for his image as a champion for liberal causes, voters in Iowa have taken notice and according to The Boston Globe, Sanders poses a real threat to the Clinton campaign: [ Clinton's advisers are most concerned that Sanders might prove to be effective at painting Clinton as squishy or untrustworthy on liberal issues. The crowds at Sanders's Iowa events appeared different from the state's famously finicky tire-kickers. Many said they had already made up their mind to support Sanders. They applauded his calls for higher taxes on the rich to pay for 13 million public works jobs, for decisive action on climate change, and for free tuition at public colleges. ] There's a reason Clinton's advisors "are most concerned" that Sanders might paint the former Secretary of State as untrustworthy: she's changed her viewpoint on gay marriage, trade, war, and a controversial pipeline. Ultimately, if Sanders wins both the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, the odds of him winning the Democratic nomination increase dramatically. Nothing illustrates the potential for Sanders to accomplish this task than a piece in The Des Moines Register titled Sanders encouraged by Iowa crowds, rising polls: [ Sanders is drawing record crowds. On Wednesday night, more than 10,000 people attended his rally in Madison, Wisconsin, and nearly 2,500 attended a Friday evening event in Council Bluffs -- the biggest Iowa crowd of any 2016 presidential contender yet... Sanders drew both traditional Democrats and conservatives on Saturday. "This will be the first time I've caucused with the Democrats," said Michael Tallman, 25, of Des Moines. Tallman, who works in banking, said Sanders seems like a candidate who will represent all people -- rich or poor, male or female, gay or straight. He said many millennials are disturbed by the current political process and they could be key to boosting Sanders' shot at winning. "I think he has a real chance," Tallman said. "We've seen it happen before."] While Sanders "drew both traditional Democrats and conservatives" in Iowa, it would be unthinkable to see conservatives in any state supporting Hillary Clinton. The ability of Sanders to address issues that both right and left find important (even Ted Cruz is talking about wealth inequality) is one of the many advantages Sanders has over any Democratic rival. This advantage could also catapult him to victory over any GOP challenger. Money can't buy a vote, it can only help publicize a candidate and communicate a message pertaining to policy and values. After that, even tens of billions can't erase Clinton's defense of the Iraq War, defense of traditional marriage, or deleted emails. Bernie Sanders is drawing record crowds and surging in the polls because his value system is worth infinitely more than his opponent's ability to generate billions of dollars. Like one Iowa supporter says, "I think he has a real chance," and if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, anything is possible in 2016. Pretty soon, you might never again hear the antiquated phrase, "I like Bernie Sanders, but..." from Huffington post.com (Message edited by Tod662 on July 07, 2015) | ||
| Tod662 |
If Bernie's ideas are so horrible you guys should jump on the bandwagon, because there would be a huge backlash in 4 or 8 years right? The billionaires boughten boys would be elected by the wheel barrow, to save us...right? I can't wait to break down the numbers from my independence day post, you guys say its all hogwash but I can't find any political pundit elsewhere that can punch holes in it. Aesquire lets start with the first 2 paragraphs. Instead of pouting, stomping your feet and saying No, No, No, how about you show some numbers about where wealth is held and gained in this country. | ||
| Reindog |
I am all for Bernie Sanders... to throw a wrench in the criminal Clinton syndicate. Bernie Sanders can't win because he will do to America what the Greek Socialists have done to Greece. The American People stumble occasionally like they did with Obama, but they are not stupid. Tod, your profile page says you are an organic certification specialist. I have never heard of that occupation. | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
The first paragraph? Public record. Dept. Of Labor. Second paragraph. G. Soros, and the other filthy rich who bribe Barack. See the stats supporting the first paragraph. Regressive policy destroys the middle class. Bernie isn't wrong, the rich got richer, he just fails to tell you it's his fault. I suppose I would support Stalin over Clinton. I reject that those are the only D possible candidates. | ||
| Tod662 |
"From 2009 to 2012, average real income per family grew modestly by 6.0%. Most of the gains happened in the last year when average incomes grew by 4.6% from 2011 to 2012. However, the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.4% from 2009 to 2012. Hence, the top 1% captured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. … In 2012, top 1% incomes increased sharply by 19.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 1.0%. In sum, top 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover" from the American enterprise institute a right leaning think tank. But your cognitive abilities limit your ability to see the truth. "Pretty much B.S. except it is true that if you bribed Obama you made out. Since only rich people bribe Obama" is what you said in response to Bernie's "Meanwhile, the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. Today, 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent, while the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 40 percent. In the last two years, the wealthiest 14 people in this country increased their wealth by $157 billion. That increase is more than is owned by the bottom 130 million Americans -- combined. " You have nothing to base your opinion on. For each of the "filthy rich" who are backing Obama, how many are paying the way for every republican running? Your assertion that Bernie is voting to help them is baseless. | ||
| Hootowl |
They certify, under the authority of the USDA, that a food item, from the time it is planted, to the time it is harvested, processed, packaged, and sold, complies with the USDA standards for the "USDA Certified Organic" label. An "Organic" product may only contain other "Certified Organic" products in its list of ingredients. "USDA Certified Organic" is your assurance that the product was produced using the most water and land intensive farming methods available in the 19th century. For example, using heavy metals that persist in the environment to control fungus instead of a man made fungicide that decomposes harmlessly in the soil. My sister makes "USDA Certified Organic" horse feed. Yes, there's a market for it. "There's a sucker born every minute". | ||
| Aesquire |
Fair enough.... the bribed politicians including the R leaders and Barry & Hillary certainly support the ones who give them money. It's the socialist theology that is based on lies and screws the little guy. State worship is evil. |
