No matter who wins, America loses.....

[hangover]

In a time when this country needs sensible leaders, there are none that can provide that leadership.

Bernie Sanders is the only sensible candidate, but even he is viewed as an extremist. And there is not going to be enough sensible politicians in congress that will allow him to fix what is wrong with this country.

Hillary is so owned by superpacs and special interests, that if she becomes POTUS it will be just four more years of gridlock. Feminism will not fix anything.

And if any of the GOP candidates become POTUS, we are going to have gridlock on top of WWIII, plus the chaos of rampant bigotry.

Woe to the United States.

No matter who wins, the next four years will be the worst in this country's history.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In a time when this country needs sensible leaders, there are none that can provide that leadership.

Bernie Sanders is the only sensible candidate

Playing Robin Hood is not sensible.

 

[Tuatara]

New to the whole Bernie Sanders thing. What has he actually said or done for people to call him extremist or in your case "Robin Hood"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bernie needs to run Third party

 

[hangover]

In a time when this country needs sensible leaders, there are none that can provide that leadership.

Bernie Sanders is the only sensible candidate

Playing Robin Hood is not sensible.

It's a lot more sensible than the rigged system of "for the rich, by the rich"...that only gave us a $19 trillion national debt. THERE ARE NO POOR IN CONGRESS!

 

[ForeverYoung436]

New to the whole Bernie Sanders thing. What has he actually said or done for people to call him extremist or in your case "Robin Hood"

You must have just landed in America from another country. Sanders is a Socialist. He believes in a Medicare-for-all system, free college tuition, etc. He doesn't specify how he will pay for all this.

 

[Manchester]

New to the whole Bernie Sanders thing. What has he actually said or done for people to call him extremist or in your case "Robin Hood"

You must have just landed in America from another country. Sanders is a Socialist. He believes in a Medicare-for-all system, free college tuition, etc. He doesn't specify how he will pay for all this.

Maybe by not having to pay out so much by locking up such a huge proportion of the adult males in the country. That works in europe. Free college, free healthcare and nowhere near as many prisons.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In a time when this country needs sensible leaders, there are none that can provide that leadership.

Bernie Sanders is the only sensible candidate, but even he is viewed as an extremist.

The man is a nut job

 

[paulitician]

Sadly, it is now a country ruled by Communist/Nazi Totalitarians. We're already a Police State, and they'll want their WWIII next. Both Parties seem to want that. I see much darker times ahead, regardless of which Party has the Presidency. I hate to say that, but it is how i feel.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In a time when this country needs sensible leaders, there are none that can provide that leadership.

TRANSLATION: There are no candidates who can carry forward the leftist-fanatic agenda.

But that's not a fault of the candidates. It's because the leftist agenda is insupportable and will fail no matter who backs it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In a time when this country needs sensible leaders, there are none that can provide that leadership.

Bernie Sanders is the only sensible candidate, but even he is viewed as an extremist. And there is not going to be enough sensible politicians in congress that will allow him to fix what is wrong with this country.

Hillary is so owned by superpacs and special interests, that if she becomes POTUS it will be just four more years of gridlock. Feminism will not fix anything.

And if any of the GOP candidates become POTUS, we are going to have gridlock on top of WWIII, plus the chaos of rampant bigotry.

Woe to the United States.

No matter who wins, the next four years will be the worst in this country's history.

The usual recitation of far-left talking points.

On the verge of complete collapse, these people can come up with nothing more than the same old, tired, long-debunked pap.

No real surprise. The emptiness of their agenda is reflected in the emptiness of their "defense" of it. It's hard to defend the indefensible.

 

[Tuatara]

New to the whole Bernie Sanders thing. What has he actually said or done for people to call him extremist or in your case "Robin Hood"

You must have just landed in America from another country. Sanders is a Socialist. He believes in a Medicare-for-all system, free college tuition, etc. He doesn't specify how he will pay for all this.

I know his web page says "Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income. The only long-term solution to America's health care crisis is a single-payer national health care program." I mean who would argue with the first part. As for the second part I can't think of any alternative solution. As for the Free College tuition it has shown to work in some countries. Worthy of a discussion without responded with a label.

 

[Tuatara]

In a time when this country needs sensible leaders, there are none that can provide that leadership.

Bernie Sanders is the only sensible candidate, but even he is viewed as an extremist.

The man is a nut job

How so?

 

[paulitician]

In a time when this country needs sensible leaders, there are none that can provide that leadership.

Bernie Sanders is the only sensible candidate, but even he is viewed as an extremist. And there is not going to be enough sensible politicians in congress that will allow him to fix what is wrong with this country.

Hillary is so owned by superpacs and special interests, that if she becomes POTUS it will be just four more years of gridlock. Feminism will not fix anything.

And if any of the GOP candidates become POTUS, we are going to have gridlock on top of WWIII, plus the chaos of rampant bigotry.

Woe to the United States.

No matter who wins, the next four years will be the worst in this country's history.

The usual recitation of far-left talking points.

On the verge of complete collapse, these people can come up with nothing more than the same old, tired, long-debunked pap.

No real surprise. The emptiness of their agenda is reflected in the emptiness of their "defense" of it. It's hard to defend the indefensible.

Well to be fair, he was talking about both Parties. And he did make a valid point. I'm not with him on the Sanders stuff so much though. But we are rapidly headed down the dark path of Police State and WWIII. And both Parties are leading us there.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bernie is an idiot. Genuine, but not very bright

 

[Little-Acorn]

I know his web page says "Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege.

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.

 

[Little-Acorn]

New to the whole Bernie Sanders thing. What has he actually said or done for people to call him extremist or in your case "Robin Hood"

A lot of people blithely cite Robin Hood, without thinking through what Robin Hood actually did.

I know, no one's really sure if he even existed. But the legends are fun to read and study, anyway.

Someone writing a movie came up with the shortie, "He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor" to try to explain what RH did. But it is pretty wide of the mark.

Who, exactly, did Robin Hood "steal" from?

Government tax collectors and treasury agents!

And who did he give the money to?

Farmers, cobblers, cabinet makers, seamstresses, housewives, blacksmiths etc. Most of whom were poor. In other words, he gave the money back to the people the government agents had taken it from in the first place, who were suffering in poverty after the government has raided their pocketbooks.

Robin Hood was a conservative.

 

[Tuatara]

I know his web page says "Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege.

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. ...

Not going to quote your whole post but I would like to respond.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment?

Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

I really don't see a difference between these new and old rights.This old right you speak of is what these people want. So let's look at your definition of "new rights"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

Why is somebody stopping what they are doing. You have an ailment you would still make an appointment with a doctor or ion the case of an emergency you would go to a clinic or emergency room at the hospital. There, they will decide the level of sickness and see you accordingly. How is this changing anything from the old right?

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you?

Of course they have to treat you. That is their job. Pretty odd for a doctor to sit at his office saying I'm not treating anyone.

What if their schedules are full--

I try and make appointments all the time when the a particular scheduled time is full. Guess what. I have to make an appointment for the next scheduled free time. I don't get preferential treatment. In the case of a hospital emergency room I'm quite sure the patient with the gun shot wound will be put ahead of someone with non-life threatening ailments.

do they have to bump another patient to make room for you?

At a doctor's office. No. I don't remember anyone ever advocating this.

What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give?

What are you talking about. Healthcare being a right means everyone has access to healthcare without worrying about going broke or bankrupt or being turned away because they can't pay. Nothing to do with special preferential treatment that somebody must always be available on a whim to take care of even the smallest needs.

Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

Nobody has asked for this.

 

[Tuatara]

New to the whole Bernie Sanders thing. What has he actually said or done for people to call him extremist or in your case "Robin Hood"

A lot of people blithely cite Robin Hood, without thinking through what Robin Hood actually did.

I know, no one's really sure if he even existed. But the legends are fun to read and study, anyway.

Someone writing a movie came up with the shortie, "He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor" to try to explain what RH did. But it is pretty wide of the mark.

Who, exactly, did Robin Hood "steal" from?

Government tax collectors and treasury agents!

And who did he give the money to?

Farmers, cobblers, cabinet makers, seamstresses, housewives, blacksmiths etc. Most of whom were poor. In other words, he gave the money back to the people the government agents had taken it from in the first place, who were suffering in poverty after the government has raided their pocketbooks.

Robin Hood was a conservative.

Everyone, liberals and conservatives want less taxes. They just don't agree where to spend them. Liberals usually want the money for education, healthcare and social programs. Things that help people. Conservatives want the tax money to go to the military and hand outs to corporations. Things that don't help people except a select few.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

New to the whole Bernie Sanders thing. What has he actually said or done for people to call him extremist or in your case "Robin Hood"

A lot of people blithely cite Robin Hood, without thinking through what Robin Hood actually did.

I know, no one's really sure if he even existed. But the legends are fun to read and study, anyway.

Someone writing a movie came up with the shortie, "He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor" to try to explain what RH did. But it is pretty wide of the mark.

Irrelevant. That is the description people recognize in connection with the name, ergo the one that is most used when describing democrats and socialism.

A description of theft. Not a history lesson.