wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2013 11:36:46 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 11:15 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/15/13, 11:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:





On 11/15/2013 10:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:



Bernie Sanders:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q





I enjoy listening to his views. Doubtful I'd ever vote for him though.



Here's another YouTube for your viewing pleasu



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coVE0PDGSw4





He handles assholes, such as the fellow from Human Events, very well.











I'll give him one thing. He practices what he preaches, unlike others

like John Kerry who advocates for the "little guy" while making sure

his 100's of millions are well protected in tax shelters.



Sander's net worth is less than $500,000 and that includes a modest

condo and a modest house.



Kerry's net worth is over $193 million, not counting his wife's sizable

assets. Add her's to the mix and it more than doubles.



Like I said, I doubt I could ever vote for Sanders but I enjoy

listening to his views.



Its the GREEDY rich Americans that will be their own downfall when the
Country folds like a House of Cards.

Actually I think it is the poor greedy Americans who will cause our
downfall. All those demands for services from the government, that they do
not have to work or pay for.


Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this
profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote
itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always
votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the
democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to
be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." From Wiki.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1945577434406410446.356534bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1346682265406400232.855899bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1801984088406327956.578196bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1282941398406319299.788059bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/15/2013 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger
socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Al is perfectly happy living on the fears of the chattering class and
the warm earthers....

"Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still
thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't
directly related to greenhouse gases.

We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years
ago, except for couple minor ice ages.

Oh, holy **** you are stupid! Can you read a graph without the help of
Rush Limbaugh?

http://tinyurl.com/llgydx8

http://tinyurl.com/mlsxum9

Graphs? Like the famous "Hockey Stick Graph"? The debate is still on
about what is causing global warming. Mt. Pinatubo let loose more warming
gases than man did in years. Krakatoa almost killed off settlers in the
Midwest. July snow storms in the 1880's. Crop failures. Global warming,
yes. Science behind the warming? In debate. We have had years of low sun
spot activity. The big fusion engine in the sky, has a hell of a lot more
influence than man. But you are intellectually lays, or just a dumbass.

Right, ignore the scientific data, then tell someone else they are a
dumbass. Got it. To what do you attribute the direct correlation between
the rise in greenhouse gases and the rise in overall temperature of the
earth? To what to you attribute the direct correlation between the
amount of greenhouse gases in industrialized nations and the sharper
rise in temperature in those areas? You do realize you are even beyond
FOX on this? After there hired naysayers actually studied the matter,
97% of them agreed that man is indeed causing a sharp rise in greenhouse
gases and that those gases are directly responsible for warming.

http://www.climatepath.org/aboutus/science

Now instead of sticking your head in the sand, read this, then tell me
what about this is not true:

http://tinyurl.com/3ddpto

NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

"How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an
isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural
sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels
of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is
390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only
other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human
industrial emissions of fossil fuels."

And your bull**** about the sun leads to:

When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen-
14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air,
carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-
10) through a nuclear reaction:

14N + p ? 14C + n

This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from
deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.

Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from
the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to
form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an
increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans

How do we know CO2 is the global warming culprit? Why not water vapor?

Oh, holy ****, you're stupid. I now fully understand you either don't
get science or are in denial. But really, try REAL hard to understand
the data.

http://tinyurl.com/ygtzcmq

There is still scientific controversy as to the affects of water vapor, CO2
and others. You do not seem to understand science and the use of science
in investigating stuff!

Show me ONE single scientific article that states that CO2 is not
harming the ozone.

They are out there. Do your own work, Dumbass.