Bernie In 2016
4 posters
Page 1 of 1
Bernie In 2016
This is why I'm voting for Bernie!
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/watch-bernie-sanders-schools-alan-greenspan-on-how-he-created-the-bush-recession/
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/watch-bernie-sanders-schools-alan-greenspan-on-how-he-created-the-bush-recession/
News Buzzard- Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Bernie In 2016
You dumped Hillary? Your idol?
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Re: Bernie In 2016
WHL wrote:You dumped Hillary? Your idol?
Do you ever pay attention to anything????
News Buzzard- Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Bernie In 2016
Yep, I have been paying attention to your posts about Bernie but I haven't said anything until now. I guess you like Bernie better because he is further left than Hillary, huh? Didn't he even call himself a Socialist? Haven't heard that lately though.
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Re: Bernie In 2016
WHL wrote:Yep, I have been paying attention to your posts about Bernie but I haven't said anything until now. I guess you like Bernie better because he is further left than Hillary, huh? Didn't he even call himself a Socialist? Haven't heard that lately though.
Bernie is an "Independent", meaning neutral; however, he's proposing that a college education should be "free".
Oh well, we've many trillions of dollars left to spend.
.
Re: Bernie In 2016
I bet NB thinks free college or everyone s a great idea.
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Re: Bernie In 2016
WHL wrote:I bet NB thinks free college or everyone s a great idea.
I do. It works in Germany!!
News Buzzard- Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Bernie In 2016
Why do any of us work when people like NB want to give us everything for free????????
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Re: Bernie In 2016
WHL wrote:Why do any of us work when people like NB want to give us everything for free????????
You want to go to college??
News Buzzard- Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Bernie In 2016
No I want to stay home and play and not work or worry about business or anything else. Just sit back and get everything for free.
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Colleges Exist to Make Money...
News Buzzard wrote:WHL wrote:Why do any of us work when people like NB want to give us everything for free????????
You want to go to college??
Why bother? The degrees are becoming less valuable, and a budding physician would be well advised to take up becoming an Obamacare attorney.
Re: Bernie In 2016
WHL wrote:No I want to stay home and play and not work or worry about business or anything else. Just sit back and get everything for free.
What does that do with free education at public universities? I guess you're happier with our current system of families being strapped with a bill of $45 thousand a year for their kid's college. That's the conservative way!
News Buzzard- Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Bernie In 2016
We never got child care credits when our kids were small. And somehow we managed to get them grown up and through college without help from the government.
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Re: Bernie In 2016
Most people wouldn't be able to afford to get their kids through Brewster Academy today. Never mind college!
News Buzzard- Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01
Sander's Wife, Jane, Committed Fraud with OPM...
Socialism, as they say, works until you run out of other people’s money. That appears to have happened to Jane Sanders, the wife of Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.
The story is banal. A woman who has her job because of her husband’s clout finagles a credulous state agency into accepting bogus financial documents. Real estate is purchased. The fraud is discovered. The wife of the powerful man is paid a lot of money to leave. Everyone else is ruined.
This is the short version of the tale.
Jane Sanders was president of a small Burlington College. By small I mean that this year the college has 180 students.
Founded in 1972 in a person’s living room, the school has consistently had fewer than 300 students. Accordingly, for most of its history it has lacked much of a campus. The school also caters to a relatively niche market interested in programs such as its relatively rare study-abroad program in Cuba.
Back in 2010 a 32-acre lakeshore parcel convenient to the existing campus came on the market for $10 million. This piece of land became the centerpiece in Sanders’s scheme to increase enrollment at Burlington College from 200 students to 400 students. The problem: the college’s annual budget was $4 million. The solution: get other people to foot the bill.
In order to finance the purchase, Burlington College presented its case to the Vermont Educational and Health Buildings Finance Agency (VEHBFA), a state agency that issues tax-exempt state bonds for the benefit of non-profit institutions like schools or hospitals.
People’s Bank agreed to purchase the bonds, though in an analysis of the deal commissioned by VEHBFA, consulting firm PFM Group noted that, “The bank’s willingness to fund the loan is contingent upon … the minimum commitment of $2.27 million of grants and donations prior to closing.”
Sanders reported to the agency that Burlington College had raised $2.6 million with a commitment for an additional $1 million paid to the college over five years. Just one small problem:
But in fact, even the smaller figure supplied by Sanders appears to have been anything but “confirmed.” According to audits obtained by The DCNF, the school listed $1,303,785 in short- and long-term commitments for the year ending June 30, 2011, the same year that the college received the financing.
Okay, maybe two small problems. That $1 million. It was actually a bequest, not a donation, and the bequestor has no yet joined the “great majority” so it is anything but certain. Why did the college get this loan? What happened to Sanders? Both those questions are neatly summed up in two sentences.
Vermont has a “D+” on their “Corruption Risk Report Card,” according to The State Integrity organization, a project of the Center for Public Integrity. The ranking, which puts the Green Mountain State 26th out of 50 states, includes an “F” for “ethics enforcement agencies.”
On Sep. 26, 2011, less than a year after orchestrating the property purchase and with two years remaining in her contract, Jane Sanders abruptly resigned as president of Burlington College.
For driving the college into near bankruptcy with a fraudulent loan application, Sanders received a severance bonus of $200,000.
Burlington College flirts with bankruptcy. It has sold off 25 of the 32 acres it purchased. Sanders’s successor hasn’t had much success in turning things around:
Two years into her presidency, Burlington College’s situation is much more serious. The school has failed to meet the enrollment and fundraising goals Plunkett and Sanders set four years ago when the school bought a new $10 million campus.
And the school has been plagued by financial problems. Recently, Burlington College failed to deposit payments to employees’ retirement funds, used restricted scholarship money to pay for operating costs and an outside audit questioned whether the college can continue to operate.
Many faculty members say Plunkett has sacrificed the school’s mission in favor of a plan to sell half the campus to a real estate developer. Staff say Plunkett creates a toxic work environment. Students say they don’t think the school can survive with her as president.
…
During her tenure, the administration has monitored emails to the board of trustees and threatened employees who speak to the media, sources said. In two years, 11 of the 14 people she hired when she started have quit, as well as others who started before or after Plunkett transitioned from finance director to president in 2012.
But all’s well that ends well. Jane Sanders is $200,000 richer. Bernie Sanders still rails on and on about income inequality and oligarchs and golden parachutes. That’s how socialism works.
http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/27/bernie-sanderss-wife-involved-real-estate-scam/
Well, they're not "Clinton-rich", but they're working on it.
Unlikely Down the Line, But...
It's Official -- Bernie Sanders Has Overtaken Hillary Clinton In the Hearts and Minds of Democrats
I think it's just the Liberals stoking election "uncertainty".
Heard Sanders? What a nut!
.
According to PBS, Bernie Sanders is "gaining against Clinton in early polls."
Salon's Bill Curry believes "Hillary Clinton is going lose," primarily because millions of voters longing for a truly progressive candidate will nominate Sanders. POLITICO explained recently that Early-state polls hint at a Bernie Sanders surge, a headline that was unthinkable only several months earlier. Yahoo's Meredith Shiner calls Sanders a "progressive social media star and pragmatic legislator" and states that "Sanders also has a much more substantial legislative history" than any GOP challenger. In Iowa, 1,100 people packed a gym to hear Bernie Sanders speak in May.
In contrast, Team Hillary had an intimate business roundtable discussion with five "ordinary" Iowans. The only problem was that according to The Washington Post, "All five were selected to attend her events." In fact, Clinton's "staged roundtables" were attended by a total of 13 Iowans, picked by either the campaign or the host.
Therefore, a paradigm shift has taken place. Many Iowans drove 50 miles to hear Sanders speak in Des Moines, primarily because Bernie Sanders has surpassed Clinton as the ideal choice for Democratic nominee. Regarding electability, Sanders has also surpassed Clinton as the realistic choice for Democratic nominee in the minds of many voters, because as one Salon piece illustrates, Hillary "just doesn't get it."
Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
I think it's just the Liberals stoking election "uncertainty".
Heard Sanders? What a nut!
.
Last edited by News Hawk on Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Re: Bernie In 2016
It's probably just that the Dems are not all that happy with Hillary. But still, he is worse, much worse. But i notice he is a bit like Obama. When you listen to him speak he comes up with some pretty happy phrase like O did. Kind of like the hope and change thing. Things that sound good but don't really mean anything. And if you don't realize he is borderline Communist, you could be fooled.
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Re: Bernie In 2016
Bernie Sanders: The Ron Paul of the Left?
Not quite
by Justin Raimondo, May 29, 2015
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/05/28/bernie-sanders-the-ron-paul-of-the-left/
The entry of Bernie Sanders into the presidential sweepstakes is of interest to opponents of American militarism for two reasons: 1) He has a reputation as an “antiwar” figure, and 2) His primary opponent for the Democratic party nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is arguably the most hawkish Democratic White House aspirant since the days of Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. As an opponent of Gulf War I and Bush’s invasion of Iraq, many progressives – and his enemies on the right – assume Bernie’s anti-interventionist credentials are in such impeccable order that it’s fair to call him “the Ron Paul of the left.” Now that he’s officially announced his campaign, it’s time to disabuse everyone of this notion.
Sanders started out fairly radical: in 1980, after leaving the idiosyncratic Liberty Union Party of Vermont, he was supporting Andrew Pulley, the presidential candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, a hardcore Leninist-Trotskyist grouplet, even while he had the choice of Barry Commoner, the softcore socialist candidate of the middle-class liberal Citizens Party. And we aren’t just talking about verbal support: Sanders served as a presidential elector for the Socialist Workers ticket in Vermont that year.
One can still detect undertones of his affinity for the founder of the Red Army in his more recent ululations, such as his recent imprecations hurled at the multiplicity of consumer choices available in the capitalist economy: “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” he snarled at his campaign debut.
While this ideological hybrid of New England Puritanism and war communism is unlikely to find much resonance anyplace outside of North Korea, progressives are so disheartened by the apparent inevitability of having to hold their noses and vote for a woman who embodies crony capitalism and voted for the Iraq war that they might be forgiven for overlooking Bernie’s crankier notions. Especially appealing, in a presidential election cycle where foreign policy is likely to be a major issue, is his purported opposition to our foreign policy of global intervention: his votes against both Gulf wars stand out in stark contrast to Hillary’s record.
Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary’s than he likes to admit. Yes, he opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan. In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders voted for a congressional resolution hailing Bush:
“Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.”
As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out millions to “pro-freedom” groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush administration, you’ll recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering scores of Iranian civilians. Bush was also canoodling with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label lifted by Hillary Clinton’s State Department after a well-oiled public relations campaign).
Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate office in Burlington, Vermont, he called the cops on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie argued passionately in favor of Bill Clinton’s “humanitarian” intervention, and pointedly told hecklers to leave if they didn’t like what he had to say.
As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted in favor of making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI’s authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the Senate he was regularly voting for that agency’s ever-expanding budget.
The evolution of Bernie Sanders – from his days as a Liberty Unionist radical and Trotskyist fellow-traveler, to his first political success as Mayor of Burlington, his election to Congress and then on to the Senate – limns the course of the post-Sixties American left. Although birthed in the turmoil of the Vietnam war, the vaunted anti-interventionism of this crowd soon fell by the wayside as domestic political tradeoffs trumped ideology. Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than Sanders’ support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in Vermont.
Never mind all that highfalutin’ anti-militarist rhetoric – a politician’s job is to bring home the bacon. And that is what Sanders, and his fellow progressives (for the most part), have done. In Bernie’s case, the F-35 issue dramatizes the political dynamics of how the “anti-imperialist” radicals of yesteryear became the Establishment’s house progressives in 2015.
While the Democrats – whom the “independent” Sanders caucuses with, and votes with 99% of the time – vote to expand the Welfare State, the Republicans vote to expand the Warfare State. Aside from a few symbolic skirmishes, done mainly for public consumption, neither really stands in the way of the other. In this manner, both sectors of the federal budget have expanded exponentially to the point where we face a real crisis of fiscal insolvency at home, as well as deadly “blowback” emanating from abroad. Sanders plays his part in this legislative tradeoff, just like all the rest of them.
The Ron Paul of the left? Listen, I know Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a friend of mine – and, Senator, you’re no Ron Paul!
No one currently running for the presidency is a consistent noninterventionist, although Sen. Rand Paul – who I’ve criticized pretty harshly, here and elsewhere – comes closest, albeit very far from close enough. The truth is that we still must depend on ourselves – not some politician in Washington – to ward off the War Party and prevent another major conflict from developing.
Not quite
by Justin Raimondo, May 29, 2015
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/05/28/bernie-sanders-the-ron-paul-of-the-left/
The entry of Bernie Sanders into the presidential sweepstakes is of interest to opponents of American militarism for two reasons: 1) He has a reputation as an “antiwar” figure, and 2) His primary opponent for the Democratic party nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is arguably the most hawkish Democratic White House aspirant since the days of Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. As an opponent of Gulf War I and Bush’s invasion of Iraq, many progressives – and his enemies on the right – assume Bernie’s anti-interventionist credentials are in such impeccable order that it’s fair to call him “the Ron Paul of the left.” Now that he’s officially announced his campaign, it’s time to disabuse everyone of this notion.
Sanders started out fairly radical: in 1980, after leaving the idiosyncratic Liberty Union Party of Vermont, he was supporting Andrew Pulley, the presidential candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, a hardcore Leninist-Trotskyist grouplet, even while he had the choice of Barry Commoner, the softcore socialist candidate of the middle-class liberal Citizens Party. And we aren’t just talking about verbal support: Sanders served as a presidential elector for the Socialist Workers ticket in Vermont that year.
One can still detect undertones of his affinity for the founder of the Red Army in his more recent ululations, such as his recent imprecations hurled at the multiplicity of consumer choices available in the capitalist economy: “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” he snarled at his campaign debut.
While this ideological hybrid of New England Puritanism and war communism is unlikely to find much resonance anyplace outside of North Korea, progressives are so disheartened by the apparent inevitability of having to hold their noses and vote for a woman who embodies crony capitalism and voted for the Iraq war that they might be forgiven for overlooking Bernie’s crankier notions. Especially appealing, in a presidential election cycle where foreign policy is likely to be a major issue, is his purported opposition to our foreign policy of global intervention: his votes against both Gulf wars stand out in stark contrast to Hillary’s record.
Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary’s than he likes to admit. Yes, he opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan. In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders voted for a congressional resolution hailing Bush:
“Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.”
As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out millions to “pro-freedom” groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush administration, you’ll recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering scores of Iranian civilians. Bush was also canoodling with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label lifted by Hillary Clinton’s State Department after a well-oiled public relations campaign).
Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate office in Burlington, Vermont, he called the cops on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie argued passionately in favor of Bill Clinton’s “humanitarian” intervention, and pointedly told hecklers to leave if they didn’t like what he had to say.
As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted in favor of making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI’s authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the Senate he was regularly voting for that agency’s ever-expanding budget.
The evolution of Bernie Sanders – from his days as a Liberty Unionist radical and Trotskyist fellow-traveler, to his first political success as Mayor of Burlington, his election to Congress and then on to the Senate – limns the course of the post-Sixties American left. Although birthed in the turmoil of the Vietnam war, the vaunted anti-interventionism of this crowd soon fell by the wayside as domestic political tradeoffs trumped ideology. Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than Sanders’ support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in Vermont.
Never mind all that highfalutin’ anti-militarist rhetoric – a politician’s job is to bring home the bacon. And that is what Sanders, and his fellow progressives (for the most part), have done. In Bernie’s case, the F-35 issue dramatizes the political dynamics of how the “anti-imperialist” radicals of yesteryear became the Establishment’s house progressives in 2015.
While the Democrats – whom the “independent” Sanders caucuses with, and votes with 99% of the time – vote to expand the Welfare State, the Republicans vote to expand the Warfare State. Aside from a few symbolic skirmishes, done mainly for public consumption, neither really stands in the way of the other. In this manner, both sectors of the federal budget have expanded exponentially to the point where we face a real crisis of fiscal insolvency at home, as well as deadly “blowback” emanating from abroad. Sanders plays his part in this legislative tradeoff, just like all the rest of them.
The Ron Paul of the left? Listen, I know Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a friend of mine – and, Senator, you’re no Ron Paul!
No one currently running for the presidency is a consistent noninterventionist, although Sen. Rand Paul – who I’ve criticized pretty harshly, here and elsewhere – comes closest, albeit very far from close enough. The truth is that we still must depend on ourselves – not some politician in Washington – to ward off the War Party and prevent another major conflict from developing.
Anti Federalist- Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16
Re: Bernie In 2016
Sanders scares me!! He reminds me of Obama saying things like we need to make things better but the problem is HOW he wants to make them better.
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Re: Bernie In 2016
The "humanitarian" Kosovo War, in which Clinton* bombed the bleep out of Serbia—because hundreds of thousands of Kosovars were being murdered, and put into common graves. Years after the war ended, those gravesites have yet to be found; however, Monica's face no longer occupied the front pages of newspapers.Anti Federalist wrote:"...Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate office in Burlington, Vermont, he called the cops on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie argued passionately in favor of Bill Clinton’s “humanitarian” intervention, and pointedly told hecklers to leave if they didn’t like what he had to say..."
The trail of Arkancides and other deaths follow the Clintons everywhere they go. Yet Bernie Sanders, a Socialist, is becoming preferable to Democrats, when Socialism's track record is even deadlier; especially, as "The Ends Justify the Means".
.
Re: Bernie In 2016
News Hawk wrote:WHL wrote:Yep, I have been paying attention to your posts about Bernie but I haven't said anything until now. I guess you like Bernie better because he is further left than Hillary, huh? Didn't he even call himself a Socialist? Haven't heard that lately though.
Bernie is an "Independent", meaning neutral; however, he's proposing that a college education should be "free".
Oh well, we've many trillions of dollars left to spend.
.
Bernie Sanders’ Wife May Have Defrauded State Agency, Bank
Documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation indicate that the wife of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders may have been able to use her clout to get away with loan fraud, nearly bankrupting the small college she was president of and collecting a sizable severance package in the process.
These revelations come amid growing speculation that Sen. Sanders, a self-described socialist who has blasted the U.S. government oligarchy run by billionaires and railed against the golden parachutes received by top corporate executives, will contend for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Jane Sanders was the president of tiny Burlington College in Burlington, Vermont for seven years, from 2004 until 2011. During her tenure, Sanders masterminded an ambitious expansion plan that would have more than doubled the size of the school. To do so, she had the college take on $10 million in debt to finance the purchase of a new, far more expansive campus. The move backfired massively, leading to Sanders’ departure from the college and the near-collapse of the institution.
According to Jonna Spilbor, an attorney who reviewed the documents for The DCNF, “the college APPEARS to have committed a pretty sophisticated crime” by exaggerating donor commitments in order to secure financing for the deal.
Sanders’ role in bringing Burlington College to the brink of the abyss has been known for years. Research by The DCNF, however, indicates that Sanders may not just be guilty of bad judgment, but potentially criminal activity enabled by Vermont officials willing to implicitly trust the wife of a sitting senator.
The Daily Caller News Foundation
Yup. Bernie for President...
.
Re: Bernie In 2016
All this country needs is for him to be the president. We are doomed if he is. He is worse than Hillary.
WHL- Admin
- Posts : 6057
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14
Similar topics
» A Good Man for 2016...
» The Not Ready For Prime Time Players
» Hillary in 2016?
» Senator Bernie Storms The Senate
» Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) Asks...
» The Not Ready For Prime Time Players
» Hillary in 2016?
» Senator Bernie Storms The Senate
» Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) Asks...
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum