Bernie Sanders litmus test......

[TheZouave]

Ahh, yes. Misinformation and character assassination at it's finest. :-P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y675h-nlCaU

That old jive turkey Bernie the Bolshevik is still around?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xZvo5z6Q4U

He needs to drive his $170,000 Audi to his plush Dacha in the country side- that the knouted rich counter revolutionary Kulaks paid for- and retire.

Old hypocrite Bolshies never fade away I guess.

[Ugly Hombre]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266

***In August 2016, Sanders purchased a seasonal waterfront home on Lake Champlain in Vermont, for $575,000. He already owned a row house on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, and a home in Burlington, Vermont. Notwithstanding the fact that he owns three homes, Sanders has consistently articulated his belief that the luxuries of wealthy people should be limited -- or at least taxed at a very high rate. In April 2017, for instance, the senator tweeted: "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all."**

Hmm So the Russians put out that clip of Bernie in the Audi?

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13339498/2/what-does-your-presidential-candidate-drive.html

***"Sanders earned more than $1 million in 2016. That total included: (a) his $174,000 Senate salary; (b) a $795,000 advance for his book, Our Revolution; (c) another $63,750 for his forthcoming book, Bernie Sanders’ Guide to Political Revolution; and $6,735 in royalties for his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House."***

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2239

*** Between 2000 and 2014, Sanders used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work, according to Federal Election Commission records."***

How many houses do millionaire Socialists need- anyway?

You can't have it all.

[TheZouave]

LoL. You're really trying hard. $150,000 for two people over 14 years. That's less than $6,000 per year. If they're involved in the campaigns at all, and they're only making that, I'd say that's pretty much par for the course. I know, I know, math is hard, so its easy to overlook things like that. ;-) I don't see much complaining about the Millions that Trump's family is raking in working for him. Orders of magnitude more money than Sanders paid two members of his family for work done for him.

Great, he earned more than $1,000,000 last year. After working for years as a public servant, he finally had a year in which people paid Sanders over $1,000,000. Why is that a bad thing? If you think that's an issue, then you don't know how Socialism works (which leaves intact most market based pricing - and the ability to get paid fairly for what you're doing - or unfairly for what you're not doing).

Sanders has advocated for taxing the group he's now a part of. So have many, many other millionaires and billionaires. They usually recognize that they didn't get where they are by doing everything themselves, instead they typically relied on a vast network of support that enabled them to make the most of their talents/vision/ideas/goals/etc.

You also seem to be missing the three orders of magnitude difference between his tweet and where he is now. Literally someone a thousand times richer than he is was the target of his tweet. That's someone who can have 3,000 houses, instead of 3 houses. I'd say his tweet, at that point, is pretty fair.

But go ahead and attack the guy some more - someone who has consistently stood up for the working class his entire career, who, while you may disagree with his politics and beliefs, is pretty widely respected by those who know him. Someone who fights for veterans benefits, healthcare, education, energy independence...

Its just really sad to see character attacks launched at someone who has made public service his life's work - when there are much better targets for character attacks that get widely ignored here.

Don't you guys have anything better to do than to exaggerate/make up claims about Sanders?

(Like maybe research the differences between communism and socialism, as it sounds like there is some confusion on the subject?)

[Ugly Hombre]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-goal-of-socialism-is-communism-vladimir-lenin-17-25-00.jpg

Lol--Bernie may be a hero to you but to me he is a Socialist hypocrite, go ahead and research him- "Discover The Net works" is a good place to start.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266

***Sanders during the 1980s "collaborated with Soviet and East German 'peace committees'" whose aim was "to stop President Reagan’s deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe.” Indeed, he “openly joined the Soviets’ 'nuclear freeze' campaign to undercut Reagan’s military build-up.”

"In 1985 Sanders traveled to Managua, Nicaragua to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the rise to power of Daniel Ortega and his Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. In a letter which he addressed to the people of Nicaragua, Sanders denounced the anti-Communist activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the control of corporate interests. Assuring the Nicaraguans that Americans were “fair minded people” who had more to offer “than the bombs and economic sabotage” promoted by President Reagan, he declared: “In the long run, I am certain that you will win, and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.”***

"'Its just really sad to see character attacks launched at someone who has made public service his life's work - when there are much better targets for character attacks that get widely ignored here."

Bernie has made the promotion of Socialist-Communist causes his life's work- to me that not service in the best interest of the American public. You seem to think very different.

"You don't know how Socialism works"

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/17/venezuelas-disaster-demonstrates-socialisms-failure/

Sure-here is the most recent example of how Socialist rule "works".

***"Almost two decades of strongman socialist rule in Venezuela has led not to more prosperity for the people, but, according to the Economist, to 82% of households living in poverty compared to 48% prior to Chavez. Amid rhetoric championing redistribution and struggle against wealthy elites, Venezuelans now have neither liberty nor prosperity and must watch as their nation collapses around them."***

Bernie also, in the OP's original clip- seems to me- to be Anti-Christian. Which is a common stance with Socialists and Communists.

We will agree to disagree.

[TheZouave]

In Marxist/Leninist theory, yes, socialism is a step towards Communism. In that same theory, Capitalism is a step towards Communism. You don't get to cherry-pick from a single theory and pretend like that applies to everything, otherwise Capitalism is also on the road to Communism, by the definition and standard you've applied.

Likewise, you don't get to pick a single example of Socialism and pretend like that's the ideal, anymore than I get to point at Somalia and claim that it is an example of Libertarian government. Socialism has some excellent benefits, and some major drawbacks. Should we condemn the entire system because of those drawbacks, or should we look at what good we can find and look at what is proven to work (in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, the UK, Finland, Switzerland, etc. etc.)?

Trump has praised Putin (and far more recently than Bernie praised Ortega), do you apply the same standard for him that you do to Bernie? Bernie's stance then was against the US led efforts to overthrow democratically elected governments, something that Sanders very vocally opposed. I'm inclined to agree with him on that point - whatever you want to say about Ortega or others - we have a history of meddling in other governments and leaving things worse than when we found them.

As for him working with groups fighting Nuclear proliferation and the deployment of nuclear weapons to Europe... Well, I'm okay with that too. It was a principled stand against nuclear weapons, and I really can't fault him for that. Any Christian who supports the deployment of weapons that, if used, would result in thousands or millions of civilian casualties, well... Lets just say that I disagree with their interpretation of the Bible.

But getting back to the OP's point - I don't see anything vaguely anti-Christian in his comments. If you have a public official who is saying that anyone who isn't Christian "stands condemned", that's a pretty heavy statement to make. I just find it laughable that everyone's claiming he has no tolerance for Christians. No - what he has no tolerance for is people who are condemning others for not sharing their same beliefs. You want to be a Christian? Fine. You want to represent and serve this country? Maybe you should represent and serve and treat all people equally, rather than dismissing an entire segment of the population as "condemned" and in need of salvation. That's not intolerance - that's taking a stand against intolerance. This isn't a chicken and the egg scenario, either. One person clearly articulated an intolerant stance, and the other person called him out on it.

I find besmirching someone's character and smearing their name with false memes and fake photos and exaggerated claims to be un-Christian. Odd to see people cry so loudly about anti-Christian bias, and then behave in an un-Christian manner... But hey, that's just me. I'm going to go back to reloading. :-D

Sincerely, though, I wish you guys all the best, I just wish there was less demonizing - on both sides - and more honest, frank and open conversation about what we can all do better. Bernie's not perfect, but by the accounts of those who actually know him (Republicans included), he's a pretty good guy. Read about what people said about him when he was Mayor of Burlington - even business leaders who were supposedly opposed to him had pretty good things to say. Disagree with his policy decisions, disagree with his views on wealth, economics and equality, but attacking his character and passing around false memes is just below you guys. You're better than that.

All the best.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quot...n-17-25-00.jpg

Lol--Bernie may be a hero to you but to me he is a Socialist hypocrite, go ahead and research him- "Discover The Net works" is a good place to start.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/17/venezuelas-disaster-demonstrates-socialisms-failure/

Sure-here is the most recent example of how Socialist rule "works".

***"Almost two decades of strongman socialist rule in Venezuela has led not to more prosperity for the people, but, according to the Economist, to 82% of households living in poverty compared to 48% prior to Chavez. Amid rhetoric championing redistribution and struggle against wealthy elites, Venezuelans now have neither liberty nor prosperity and must watch as their nation collapses around them."***

Bernie also, in the OP's original clip- seems to me- to be Anti-Christian. Which is a common stance with Socialists and Communists.

We will agree to disagree.

[SWalt]

In Marxist/Leninist theory, yes, socialism is a step towards Communism. In that same theory, Capitalism is a step towards Communism. You don't get to cherry-pick from a single theory and pretend like that applies to everything, otherwise Capitalism is also on the road to Communism, by the definition and standard you've applied.

Likewise, you don't get to pick a single example of Socialism and pretend like that's the ideal, anymore than I get to point at Somalia and claim that it is an example of Libertarian government. Socialism has some excellent benefits, and some major drawbacks. Should we condemn the entire system because of those drawbacks, or should we look at what good we can find and look at what is proven to work (in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, the UK, Finland, Switzerland, etc. etc.)?

Trump has praised Putin (and far more recently than Bernie praised Ortega), do you apply the same standard for him that you do to Bernie? Bernie's stance then was against the US led efforts to overthrow democratically elected governments, something that Sanders very vocally opposed. I'm inclined to agree with him on that point - whatever you want to say about Ortega or others - we have a history of meddling in other governments and leaving things worse than when we found them.

As for him working with groups fighting Nuclear proliferation and the deployment of nuclear weapons to Europe... Well, I'm okay with that too. It was a principled stand against nuclear weapons, and I really can't fault him for that. Any Christian who supports the deployment of weapons that, if used, would result in thousands or millions of civilian casualties, well... Lets just say that I disagree with their interpretation of the Bible.

But getting back to the OP's point - I don't see anything vaguely anti-Christian in his comments. If you have a public official who is saying that anyone who isn't Christian "stands condemned", that's a pretty heavy statement to make. I just find it laughable that everyone's claiming he has no tolerance for Christians. No - what he has no tolerance for is people who are condemning others for not sharing their same beliefs. You want to be a Christian? Fine. You want to represent and serve this country? Maybe you should represent and serve and treat all people equally, rather than dismissing an entire segment of the population as "condemned" and in need of salvation. That's not intolerance - that's taking a stand against intolerance. This isn't a chicken and the egg scenario, either. One person clearly articulated an intolerant stance, and the other person called him out on it.

I find besmirching someone's character and smearing their name with false memes and fake photos and exaggerated claims to be un-Christian. Odd to see people cry so loudly about anti-Christian bias, and then behave in an un-Christian manner... But hey, that's just me. I'm going to go back to reloading. :-D

Sincerely, though, I wish you guys all the best, I just wish there was less demonizing - on both sides - and more honest, frank and open conversation about what we can all do better. Bernie's not perfect, but by the accounts of those who actually know him (Republicans included), he's a pretty good guy. Read about what people said about him when he was Mayor of Burlington - even business leaders who were supposedly opposed to him had pretty good things to say. Disagree with his policy decisions, disagree with his views on wealth, economics and equality, but attacking his character and passing around false memes is just below you guys. You're better than that.

All the best.

You do realize this country and its ideals were founded by people who believe exactly what this man believes? You do know that Christianity has had this belief for 2000 yrs? You do know that all religions and secular beliefs excludes others? Of course Christianity teachers that those who do not accept Jesus will be excluded from Heaven, ie going to hell. All of a sudden a Christian is unfit to serve in government after 200+ yrs of serving? Bernie exemplifies and sums up a thread of thought that is being taught in society today that Christians have no place in governing and need to be chased from the public square. Its laughable considering this country was established by those who were excluded from government based upon their religion.

The rest of your post, easy to see why you defend Bernie. Socialism usurps ones freedom on the altar group think. No thanks.

[TheZouave]

I know that's what you get told a lot, but reality (and the writings of the men who founded this country) doesn't support your claims. I would really suggest doing some more research on our Founding Fathers. While they were, for the most part, identified as Christians, many were adamant about the necessity of separating Church and State. That's what Bernie was getting at - that some Christians do not make the distinction between the two when they step into public service. A Christian isn't unfit to serve, but a Christian who won't treat all people equally because of their religious beliefs IS. You don't get to swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then put your asterisk by it and say "So long as they share my beliefs." The same goes for someone who is Muslim, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Catholic, or any other religion. The point is that if someone can not articulate that their private beliefs will not prevent them from treating people equally, then they are potentially unfit to serve. What needs to be 'chased from the public square' is the idea that you get to impose your religious values and views on other people, enshrining those views into law. In this country, it happens to be predominantly Christians doing that. In others, it may be Catholics, or Muslims, etc. The amount of anger I hear by Christians against Sharia is staggering, yet they turn around and want to impose their religious views upon others. It is not so different from Sharia, for someone who does not share those beliefs.

Also, not all religions and secular beliefs exclude others. But that's beside the point. The point is that this gentleman was seeking a position in public service, and could not clearly articulate that he would treat and view people equally while serving them. If a Muslim had sat in that same seat, and said the same things - that all Christians are condemned - you would be incredibly angry and cheering Bernie on for doing exactly what he did there, would you not? If nothing changed in that entire testimony, other than acceptance of Jesus was switched to Mohammad, and Christianity to Islam, can you honestly say that you'd be angry at Bernie for anti-Muslim sentiment?

You do realize this country and its ideals were founded by people who believe exactly what this man believes? You do know that Christianity has had this belief for 2000 yrs? You do know that all religions and secular beliefs excludes others? Of course Christianity teachers that those who do not accept Jesus will be excluded from Heaven, ie going to hell. All of a sudden a Christian is unfit to serve in government after 200+ yrs of serving? Bernie exemplifies and sums up a thread of thought that is being taught in society today that Christians have no place in governing and need to be chased from the public square. Its laughable considering this country was established by those who were excluded from government based upon their religion.

The rest of your post, easy to see why you defend Bernie. Socialism usurps ones freedom on the altar group think. No thanks.

[RAMCLAP]

No. Congress early on raised money and had Bibles printed. The idea that Christianity played no part in the country's founding is absurd and revisionist. Gouverneur Morris spoke more times at the Constitutional Convention and he was a pastor put together hymnals. etc ect ad nauseum.

[SWalt]

I know that's what you get told a lot, but reality (and the writings of the men who founded this country) doesn't support your claims. I would really suggest doing some more research on our Founding Fathers. While they were, for the most part, identified as Christians, many were adamant about the necessity of separating Church and State. That's what Bernie was getting at - that some Christians do not make the distinction between the two when they step into public service. A Christian isn't unfit to serve, but a Christian who won't treat all people equally because of their religious beliefs IS. You don't get to swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then put your asterisk by it and say "So long as they share my beliefs." The same goes for someone who is Muslim, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Catholic, or any other religion. The point is that if someone can not articulate that their private beliefs will not prevent them from treating people equally, then they are potentially unfit to serve. What needs to be 'chased from the public square' is the idea that you get to impose your religious values and views on other people, enshrining those views into law. In this country, it happens to be predominantly Christians doing that. In others, it may be Catholics, or Muslims, etc. The amount of anger I hear by Christians against Sharia is staggering, yet they turn around and want to impose their religious views upon others. It is not so different from Sharia, for someone who does not share those beliefs.

Also, not all religions and secular beliefs exclude others. But that's beside the point. The point is that this gentleman was seeking a position in public service, and could not clearly articulate that he would treat and view people equally while serving them. If a Muslim had sat in that same seat, and said the same things - that all Christians are condemned - you would be incredibly angry and cheering Bernie on for doing exactly what he did there, would you not? If nothing changed in that entire testimony, other than acceptance of Jesus was switched to Mohammad, and Christianity to Islam, can you honestly say that you'd be angry at Bernie for anti-Muslim sentiment?

Not post modern revisionism again! The "separation of church and state" was to shackle the government from forcing itself on religion, not the other way around. According to you and Bernie, this man would be unfit to serve government. This evil person told Congress they better pray to God for help.

In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age.

....

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm

Of course he spoke this after attending a few orgies and boinking his side women right? Quite the ladies man 'ol Ben was. He had side woman all over the place so we are told by progressive secularists. Old Ben was an atheist who only said such things because he had too.

Your argument that "The point is that if someone can not articulate that their private beliefs will not prevent them from treating people equally, then they are potentially unfit to serve" misses a point. I consider Bernie to be unfit to serve because of his personal beliefs. He certainly seeks to change law to serve his beliefs does he not? The test is whether or not someone is qualified (mostly education/experience based) to serve in a position that the position requires not whether or not their beliefs complies with whatever cause de jour, which in this case is the cause de jour from the Academic left. Bernie qualified just by breathing to a certain age, that is all that is required. Why can't I disqualify him from service??

BTW.......the person DID articulate he would serve without bias. Where did he say he would "only serve those with his beliefs"? Watch it again without your bias. Despite this Bernie still said he should be disqualified from serving in government. But hey that is the cause de jour isn't it? And where are all these Christians trying to make law to compel people to attend their church and obey their religion? Must happen many times a yr where legislation is put forth to make people obey their religion. Can you show me, I must be missing it.

[TheZouave]

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Though it is not enshrined in official policy (in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has cited it on at least three occasions I'm aware of), I think it encapsulates the view that many of our other founding fathers had at the time: a clear distinction between their civic duties and personal beliefs. I think that division has been blurred far too much these days, on both sides, whether it is attachment to dogmatic political beliefs (as many of you would suggest Sanders is guilty of) or attachment to dogmatic religious beliefs (as I think certain Presidential candidates have exemplified in recent years). What is missing is the willingness, and the sense of duty to set aside personal views, beliefs, and ideas, and work for the benefit of the country as a whole - keeping an eye ever on serving the population, rather than serving their own beliefs. It is, of course, impossible not to have that service guided by your personal views, but having the self-awareness to set those views aside is something I find sorely lacking among most people today.

[RAMCLAP]

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Though it is not enshrined in official policy (in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has cited it on at least three occasions I'm aware of), I think it encapsulates the view that many of our other founding fathers had at the time: a clear distinction between their civic duties and personal beliefs. I think that division has been blurred far too much these days, on both sides, whether it is attachment to dogmatic political beliefs (as many of you would suggest Sanders is guilty of) or attachment to dogmatic religious beliefs (as I think certain Presidential candidates have exemplified in recent years). What is missing is the willingness, and the sense of duty to set aside personal views, beliefs, and ideas, and work for the benefit of the country as a whole - keeping an eye ever on serving the population, rather than serving their own beliefs. It is, of course, impossible not to have that service guided by your personal views, but having the self-awareness to set those views aside is something I find sorely lacking among most people today.

I always love when the one guy who wasn't at the Constitutional Convention gets used as the expert on the Constitution instead of all the guys who were actually there. It's so tedious.

[SWalt]

I always love when the one guy who wasn't at the Constitutional Convention gets used as the expert on the Constitution instead of all the guys who were actually there. It's so tedious.

What I see is replacing 1 governmental evil with another. There are well over 200 "protected classes" in CA all of which can cost you your job or business because you offended someone. It goes well beyond someone using their artistic talent to take pictures or bake a cake. Make a mistake of calling an obvious woman a woman or kicking out a "female" from the girls locker room is just a claim away from destroying someones life. Oh yeah, thats justice alright, fair and equitable.

[glilon]

Spewing God-hating atheist crud in our schools, in the media, by our politicians is A-OK. But let a city council meeting begin with a prayer and mentioning the name of JESUS, and suddenly they are intolerant, and preparing for another Spanish Inquisition!! May God repay you according to your works!

[RozaShanina]

So much irony in this thread:

1) America is a Christian nation and Bernie is a Communist. But if America is a Christian nation shouldn't we be Communist?The only true Communist society was the early Christian church.

2) Don't you think it is rather presumptuous for Christians or anyone else to tell God who God can let into heaven and who God must exclude? Just sayin.

3) Back in the 60s the John Birch Society told us that the Commies were going to take over this country without firing a shot. It appears they were prophetic.

[RAMCLAP]

So much irony in this thread:

1) America is a Christian nation and Bernie is a Communist. But if America is a Christian nation shouldn't we be Communist?The only true Communist society was the early Christian church.

2) Don't you think it is rather presumptuous for Christians or anyone else to tell God who God can let into heaven and who God must exclude? Just sayin.

3) Back in the 60s the John Birch Society told us that the Commies were going to take over this country without firing a shot. It appears they were prophetic.

Oh look. An itemized non-sequitur.

1. The early Church was not communist. It explicitly says that each did according to what they thought was right. No orders were given to give anything. They did it out of love for each other. Not because the politburo told them to.

2. Christ said no one comes to the Father except through Him. So yeah, pretty exclusive. Context is everything friend.

3. True but not topical.

If you're going to argue Bible it is best to have read one first.