SOCIALIST Sen. Bernie Saunders wants a Dem. CHALLENGER to Pres. Obama

[MaggieMae]

I'm somewhat surprised Bernie isn't running.

Of course as a Socialist he would have no party backing to speak of.

He could convert to The Democrat Party and take on Our Kenyan President but then he's have to shift so far to the left that he probably couldn't stomach it.

Obviously you know little about his record, nor his political philosophies. Since Sanders IS a "liberal" but also is quite capable of thinking in conservative terms when it comes to runaway fiscal policy, he votes with the Democrats but also teams with Republicans depending on the issue.

Last year, Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul have been successful in getting authorization for an outside audit of the Federal Reserve, but I don't know the status.

Despite audit, Federal Reserve's scope may widen with Senate bill

'Audit the Fed'

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has long argued for more aggressive oversight, including Government Accountability Office audits, of Fed policy, including its interest-rate-setting decisions. Amid the crisis, most members of the House came to his side, and Paul's proposal was part of the financial overhaul bill passed in that chamber last year. Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a similar measure in the Senate, showing how the issue united populists on the left and right.

Fed officials, the Obama administration and many private economists argued that by giving Congress more ways to second-guess monetary policy, the provisions would create political pressure for the Fed to favor actions that would stimulate economic growth in the short run but lead to inflation in the long run.

Last week, under pressure from the administration, Sanders agreed to a compromise version of his amendment that would allow an intensive outside audit of Fed lending actions during the financial crisis -- but which walls off the Fed's monetary-policy decisions from congressional review. It passed the Senate unanimously, and both the Fed and Obama administration view it as acceptable. More broadly, the Fed has signaled its intention to disclose more information about its actions; last week, it posted the contracts it maintains with foreign central banks for dollar swap lines on its Web site, and is making public how much is lent under those swap lines to each of its counterparts overseas.

Washington occasionally creates strange bedfellows (as it should be...)

 

[MaggieMae]

Bernie is the man speaking up for the middle class worker. Can the dems or GOP make that statement? Hmmmmm.

Sure they can. But it soon becomes apparent that they're all talk and no action, unless they're trolling for votes (i.e., the unfunded Prescription Drug Bill in order to garner senior votes, which historically goes to Democrats.)

 

[MaggieMae]

And yet again, your partisan nature shines through -- which you cannot see or appreciate.

LOL.

I was responding to Fly Catcher and he has consistently engaged in the use of ad hominems. But when I do it back at him it draws your unsought criticism.

Frankly, darling, I don't care if that causes my posts to lose you.

None of us are immune to the call of a good ad hominem now and again. Not even you, St. Magoo.

Double LOL. Your's doesn't? I really think your particular tunnel vision only includes one eye. Sad.

Again, I am pretty much indifferent to what YOU hink (and in this case I use that term loosely for your benefit).

YOur muddled "thinking" notwithstanding, it is not "tunnel vision" to have a clear and consistent vision and philosophy.

That I can plainly see the obvious errors of the liberal ideology is not tunnel vision, Magoo.

But even if you were right for a refreshing change of pace, my one eye would still vastly outweigh your stubborn willful blindness.

And since the concept seems to unduly confuse you, let me clue you in. I AM a partisan.

Oh gosh, thanks for clearing that up.

I'll bet you're also one of those "constitutionalists" who oddly doesn't believe in compromise either, which of course is generally what the Constitution lays out over and over again, starting with the establishment of three branches of government in order to assure a system of checks and balances (compromise vs. authoritative).

 

[MaggieMae]

Typical deflection effort from Fly Catcher.

The topic, stupid, is NOT Richard Milhaus Nixon. The topic is Barack Milhaus Obama.

Try to keep up, gasbag.

you asked who was more liberal than Obama, you have been given examples and then you claim its not on topic? You asked the stupid question in the first place.

Wow thats twice now i've pointed out glaring stupidity.

No. It's still zero.

The topic is still Pres. Obama. And it is perfectly ok to reject irrational and baseless "suggestions" or "arguments" as to which prior President allegedly fits the bill.

The "glaring stupidity," as always, remains yours.

Opening diplomatic relations with Red China is nothing more and nothing less than a matter of diplomacy. It was either wise, future-oriented governmental international policy or it was a mistake. It doesn't qualify Pres. Nixon as "more liberal" than President Obama.

Your FAIL is boundless, douche bag.

So, realizing this thread is a few days old and you only appear occasionally, I'll ask the question anyway: If you want to restrict any conversation to President Obama, then why don't you lay out exactly how you believe he has established "socialist" policies that didn't already exist under the purview of other established policy. Other than the health care reform bill, which is still iffy at best and WILL reach the USSC for a final decision at worst, how has the country become more "socialist" in your opinion? Using facts to back yourself up would help. Also, keep in mind that imposition of "regulations" don't translate into "socialist" policy.

 

[Liability]

Double LOL. Your's doesn't? I really think your particular tunnel vision only includes one eye. Sad.

Again, I am pretty much indifferent to what YOU hink (and in this case I use that term loosely for your benefit).

YOur muddled "thinking" notwithstanding, it is not "tunnel vision" to have a clear and consistent vision and philosophy.

That I can plainly see the obvious errors of the liberal ideology is not tunnel vision, Magoo.

But even if you were right for a refreshing change of pace, my one eye would still vastly outweigh your stubborn willful blindness.

And since the concept seems to unduly confuse you, let me clue you in. I AM a partisan.

Oh gosh, thanks for clearing that up.

I'll bet you're also one of those "constitutionalists" who oddly doesn't believe in compromise either, which of course is generally what the Constitution lays out over and over again, starting with the establishment of three branches of government in order to assure a system of checks and balances (compromise vs. authoritative).

I am very much committed to the Constitution. Now, and contrary to your baseless speculation, despite that, I agree that the Constitution permits compromise.

The question becomes, "what things are appropriate fodder for 'compromise' and what things should be out of bounds?"

Compromising one's principles OUGHT to always be out of bounds.

Compromising particular items in a piece of legislation (horse trading) is perfectly appropriate.

This is not a very difficult concept, actually. So it is troubling that you and so many of your stripe have such difficulty grasping it.

 

[Liability]

you asked who was more liberal than Obama, you have been given examples and then you claim its not on topic? You asked the stupid question in the first place.

Wow thats twice now i've pointed out glaring stupidity.

No. It's still zero.

The topic is still Pres. Obama. And it is perfectly ok to reject irrational and baseless "suggestions" or "arguments" as to which prior President allegedly fits the bill.

The "glaring stupidity," as always, remains yours.

Opening diplomatic relations with Red China is nothing more and nothing less than a matter of diplomacy. It was either wise, future-oriented governmental international policy or it was a mistake. It doesn't qualify Pres. Nixon as "more liberal" than President Obama.

Your FAIL is boundless, douche bag.

So, realizing this thread is a few days old and you only appear occasionally, I'll ask the question anyway: If you want to restrict any conversation to President Obama, then why don't you lay out exactly how you believe he has established "socialist" policies that didn't already exist under the purview of other established policy. Other than the health care reform bill, which is still iffy at best and WILL reach the USSC for a final decision at worst, how has the country become more "socialist" in your opinion? Using facts to back yourself up would help. Also, keep in mind that imposition of "regulations" don't translate into "socialist" policy.

So realizing that most people attend to more things than just one thread, I'll grace your petty ignorant question with an answer.

I didn't say, suggest or imply that AI wish to limit the conversation to President Obama. But when I ask for examples of who is more far left than he has been, it would be nice if the alleged 'answers" would be factually oriented and valid, and not just unduly partisan and unsupported tripe.

Feel free to give that a whirl.

 

[MaggieMae]

Again, I am pretty much indifferent to what YOU hink (and in this case I use that term loosely for your benefit).

YOur muddled "thinking" notwithstanding, it is not "tunnel vision" to have a clear and consistent vision and philosophy.

That I can plainly see the obvious errors of the liberal ideology is not tunnel vision, Magoo.

But even if you were right for a refreshing change of pace, my one eye would still vastly outweigh your stubborn willful blindness.

And since the concept seems to unduly confuse you, let me clue you in. I AM a partisan.

Oh gosh, thanks for clearing that up.

I'll bet you're also one of those "constitutionalists" who oddly doesn't believe in compromise either, which of course is generally what the Constitution lays out over and over again, starting with the establishment of three branches of government in order to assure a system of checks and balances (compromise vs. authoritative).

I am very much committed to the Constitution. Now, and contrary to your baseless speculation, despite that, I agree that the Constitution permits compromise.

The question becomes, "what things are appropriate fodder for 'compromise' and what things should be out of bounds?"

Compromising one's principles OUGHT to always be out of bounds.

Compromising particular items in a piece of legislation (horse trading) is perfectly appropriate.

This is not a very difficult concept, actually. So it is troubling that you and so many of your stripe have such difficulty grasping it.

I'm glad you show some sense in that regard. But I hope you know that there ARE some members of Congress who flat-out refuse to compromise. They've taken their cue from Grover Norquist who calls compromise "date rape." This is the kind of people no one needs serving the people of the United States. Ever.

 

[Vanquish]

Liability used to have a decent post now and then. A fact or two. A working syllogism.
Now it's just gism.

Vanquished has never had a decent post to offer. He relies on lies.

He just conceded that I "used to" have facts and syllogisms, but at the same time he denies I have ever been objective.

He is impossibly dishonest.

And he can't spell very well, either.

What a douche. I give you a compliment, backhanded mind you, but still a compliment and you turn it into an attack.

Ok, you win. I was simply complimenting you for humor's sake. You've never posted anything worth reading really.

 

[Liability]

Oh gosh, thanks for clearing that up.

I'll bet you're also one of those "constitutionalists" who oddly doesn't believe in compromise either, which of course is generally what the Constitution lays out over and over again, starting with the establishment of three branches of government in order to assure a system of checks and balances (compromise vs. authoritative).

I am very much committed to the Constitution. Now, and contrary to your baseless speculation, despite that, I agree that the Constitution permits compromise.

The question becomes, "what things are appropriate fodder for 'compromise' and what things should be out of bounds?"

Compromising one's principles OUGHT to always be out of bounds.

Compromising particular items in a piece of legislation (horse trading) is perfectly appropriate.

This is not a very difficult concept, actually. So it is troubling that you and so many of your stripe have such difficulty grasping it.

I'm glad you show some sense in that regard. But I hope you know that there ARE some members of Congress who flat-out refuse to compromise. They've taken their cue from Grover Norquist who calls compromise "date rape." This is the kind of people no one needs serving the people of the United States. Ever.

Your reply kind of presupposes that the things which Grover Norquist would deem unacceptable as "compromise" might fall within the realm of what IS appropriate for compromise.

In fact, it might be reasonable to deem a compromise on some things to be a violation of principle about when and where "compromise" should be considered inappropriate.

I contend (and I am far from alone in this) that the United States has strayed very very far from the BOUNDS within which it is supposed to operate. It is by design a limited government of enumerated powers. In order to DRAG us back to that, it might be perfectly proper (as a matter of PRINCIPLE) to get Congress-persons to COMMIT to opposing any legislation that empowers such over-reaching BY the government.

Thus, in that light, getting prospective Congress-persons seeking election (or actual Congress-persons seeking re-election) to COMMIT to voting AGAINST any higher levels of taxation or any new taxes of any kind MIGHT be considered a matter of very sincere principle.

In that case, there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Liability]

Liability used to have a decent post now and then. A fact or two. A working syllogism.
Now it's just gism.

Vanquished has never had a decent post to offer. He relies on lies.

He just conceded that I "used to" have facts and syllogisms, but at the same time he denies I have ever been objective.

He is impossibly dishonest.

And he can't spell very well, either.

What a douche. I give you a compliment, backhanded mind you, but still a compliment and you turn it into an attack.

Ok, you win. I was simply complimenting you for humor's sake. You've never posted anything worth reading really.

Vanquished:

No ma'am. You didn't give a back-handed compliment, you miserable lowlife lying bitch.

It was (typical of you) a cheap-ass attempt at taking a shot. Plain and simple.

And by the way, speaking of your utter lack of honesty or credibility, there's not one honest person on this Board who would read your post as constituting (in ANY way) a "compliment."

God Damn but you are dishonest. Even when you've just finished exposing yourself as a complete pussy liar, you STILL cling to the desperate hope that you can 'get over' on some people with another OBVIOUS lie.

You are worthless.

With all due respect,

Liability.

 

[Chris]

God bless Bernie Sanders.

He is the only honest man in the U.S. Senate.

 

[Liability]

God bless Bernie Sanders.

He is the only honest man in the U.S. Senate.

That is, of course, utterly untrue.

He sucks.

 

[Vanquish]

Is your little rant over? Still tilting at windmills and trying to convince yourself that what you say is true?

While I have explained that I'm pro-life, pro-gun, hardliner on immigration, and want fiscal responsibility ... along with some of my other more left-leaning views....

YOU are a partisan shill in every fucking post.

I dare you to find one post where you concede ANYTHING substantial to a liberal. You can't. Because you wouldn't know objective if your mom stopped using her dildo and instead fucked you up the ass with an objectivity stick.

The only thing you've Vanquished is the belt around your waist. I'm sure you're a lardass behind the screen. I can tell from the way you write.

 

[Liability]

Is your little rant over? Still tilting at windmills and trying to convince yourself that what you say is true?

While I have explained that I'm pro-life, pro-gun, hardliner on immigration, and want fiscal responsibility ... along with some of my other more left-leaning views....

YOU are a partisan shill in every fucking post.

I dare you to find one post where you concede ANYTHING substantial to a liberal. You can't. Because you wouldn't know objective if your mom stopped using her dildo and instead fucked you up the ass with an objectivity stick.

The only thing you've Vanquished is the belt around your waist. I'm sure you're a lardass behind the screen. I can tell from the way you write.

Vanquished, you petty pissant little gnat:

You are still trying urgently to get me to give a fuck about your "views."

It's really quite pathetic of you.

You have no cred little lady. None.

Now go buzz off, pussy.

Seriously.

Before I break out the bug spray.

 

[Vanquish]

Is your little rant over? Still tilting at windmills and trying to convince yourself that what you say is true?

While I have explained that I'm pro-life, pro-gun, hardliner on immigration, and want fiscal responsibility ... along with some of my other more left-leaning views....

YOU are a partisan shill in every fucking post.

I dare you to find one post where you concede ANYTHING substantial to a liberal. You can't. Because you wouldn't know objective if your mom stopped using her dildo and instead fucked you up the ass with an objectivity stick.

The only thing you've Vanquished is the belt around your waist. I'm sure you're a lardass behind the screen. I can tell from the way you write.

Vanquished, you petty pissant little gnat:

You are still trying urgently to get me to give a fuck about your "views."

It's really quite pathetic of you.

You have no cred little lady. None.

Now go buzz off, pussy.

Seriously.

Before I break out the bug spray.

Can't link even one post? That's what I thought.

Liability vanquished. Next.

 

[Liability]

Is your little rant over? Still tilting at windmills and trying to convince yourself that what you say is true?

While I have explained that I'm pro-life, pro-gun, hardliner on immigration, and want fiscal responsibility ... along with some of my other more left-leaning views....

YOU are a partisan shill in every fucking post.

I dare you to find one post where you concede ANYTHING substantial to a liberal. You can't. Because you wouldn't know objective if your mom stopped using her dildo and instead fucked you up the ass with an objectivity stick.

The only thing you've Vanquished is the belt around your waist. I'm sure you're a lardass behind the screen. I can tell from the way you write.

Vanquished, you petty pissant little gnat:

You are still trying urgently to get me to give a fuck about your "views."

It's really quite pathetic of you.

You have no cred little lady. None.

Now go buzz off, pussy.

Seriously.

Before I break out the bug spray.

Can't link even one post? That's what I thought.

Liability vanquished. Next.

"Can't?"

LOL.

You must imagine that you have some amazing ability to persuade people to take you seriously.





Vanquished = fail (yet again).

Next.

 

[Vanquish]

Here we go loopty-loo...

Liability posts another response without a link.

Are you going to keep posting drivel or find us a link or, better yet, concede. I know you're too crazy to do the latter, but it's funny watching you post over and over embarrassing yourself. The more you post without linking now, the funnier you are.

Keep it up. It's classic.

 

[Liability]

Here we go loopty-loo...

Liability posts another response without a link.

Are you going to keep posting drivel or find us a link or, better yet, concede. I know you're too crazy to do the latter, but it's funny watching you post over and over embarrassing yourself. The more you post without linking now, the funnier you are.

Keep it up. It's classic.

Here we go again. Vanquished shows his dedication to his futile efforts in the vain hope that he might persuade anybody ever to do his inane bidding.

Here's another clue for you, Vanquished, you FAIL.

When you make a claim, the onus is on you to support it.

Go attend to your Fail. You are making a large mess.

 

[MaggieMae]

I am very much committed to the Constitution. Now, and contrary to your baseless speculation, despite that, I agree that the Constitution permits compromise.

The question becomes, "what things are appropriate fodder for 'compromise' and what things should be out of bounds?"

Compromising one's principles OUGHT to always be out of bounds.

Compromising particular items in a piece of legislation (horse trading) is perfectly appropriate.

This is not a very difficult concept, actually. So it is troubling that you and so many of your stripe have such difficulty grasping it.

I'm glad you show some sense in that regard. But I hope you know that there ARE some members of Congress who flat-out refuse to compromise. They've taken their cue from Grover Norquist who calls compromise "date rape." This is the kind of people no one needs serving the people of the United States. Ever.

Your reply kind of presupposes that the things which Grover Norquist would deem unacceptable as "compromise" might fall within the realm of what IS appropriate for compromise.

In fact, it might be reasonable to deem a compromise on some things to be a violation of principle about when and where "compromise" should be considered inappropriate.

I contend (and I am far from alone in this) that the United States has strayed very very far from the BOUNDS within which it is supposed to operate. It is by design a limited government of enumerated powers. In order to DRAG us back to that, it might be perfectly proper (as a matter of PRINCIPLE) to get Congress-persons to COMMIT to opposing any legislation that empowers such over-reaching BY the government.

Thus, in that light, getting prospective Congress-persons seeking election (or actual Congress-persons seeking re-election) to COMMIT to voting AGAINST any higher levels of taxation or any new taxes of any kind MIGHT be considered a matter of very sincere principle.

In that case, there's nothing wrong with it.

If only Grover Norquist would say that himself. Unfortunately, he leads by one-line talking points and the clueless of the herd just follow.

 

[Liability]

I'm glad you show some sense in that regard. But I hope you know that there ARE some members of Congress who flat-out refuse to compromise. They've taken their cue from Grover Norquist who calls compromise "date rape." This is the kind of people no one needs serving the people of the United States. Ever.

Your reply kind of presupposes that the things which Grover Norquist would deem unacceptable as "compromise" might fall within the realm of what IS appropriate for compromise.

In fact, it might be reasonable to deem a compromise on some things to be a violation of principle about when and where "compromise" should be considered inappropriate.

I contend (and I am far from alone in this) that the United States has strayed very very far from the BOUNDS within which it is supposed to operate. It is by design a limited government of enumerated powers. In order to DRAG us back to that, it might be perfectly proper (as a matter of PRINCIPLE) to get Congress-persons to COMMIT to opposing any legislation that empowers such over-reaching BY the government.

Thus, in that light, getting prospective Congress-persons seeking election (or actual Congress-persons seeking re-election) to COMMIT to voting AGAINST any higher levels of taxation or any new taxes of any kind MIGHT be considered a matter of very sincere principle.

In that case, there's nothing wrong with it.

If only Grover Norquist would say that himself. Unfortunately, he leads by one-line talking points and the clueless of the herd just follow.

It is not necessary for Grover to say it if the folks who sign the pledge understand it (and their own obligations) properly, in such a light.

I'd go one further.

Despite signing such a pledge, if circumstances changed urgently (like an act of war, for example) and we needed to respond forcefully, I'd be okay with "violating" my "pledge" and proceeding to vote for an appropriate tax to cover the previously unanticipated cost. MY working assumption would be that such was an unstated (but implied) term of any such pledge.