
This is a placeholder text
Group text
by joanro on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
Not 'new' at all.
"Now correct me if I'm wrong but this shit started long before "violent rhetoric" from Trump, right?"
Right. However, trump has nothing to do with your scenario. His 'violent rhetoric' is happening while he is standing on the podium during his 'pep rallies', with the purpose of inciting anger and aggression.
by joanro on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
Boggles the mind how easily people are willing to follow a demagogue to slaughter like a flock of sheep and jim Jones followers.
I certainly hope there are enough of us clear minded, freedom loving Americans to outvote the sheeple.
by K9konig on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
I don't care if Sanders organized these people and sent them to protest or not. The bottom line is they are waving his signs, representing him and acting in his name. It's his job to instruct people not to do that and to come out and say that he does not condone their behavior. Until he does that, he is just as responsible as if he had instructed them to protest and riot. It's called responsibility. I know that is a hard concept for liberals.
Of course, instead of condemning these violent racist thugs and their suppression of free speech, he blames Trump instead. Ironic that Sanders and the Left have been crowing about "safe spaces" where people are allowed to prevent people from expressing differing opinions and how "their people" need that. But, that doesn't apply evenly and equally, does it? If whiny crybaby liberals are allowed to demand people with different viewpoints be kept away from them, then Republican candidates are certainly allowed to expect that their rallies are not crashed by violent racist thugs bent on hampering their free speech.
Chew on that one libs
by joanro on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
by K9konig on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
They want banks abolished and free education guaranteed because many of them will soon graduate (or have recently done so) with no idea how to get a job so they can pay the student loans they owe. Perhaps if we had forced them to take classes in Business Administration or Accounting instead of majoring in Angry Women's Studies and Medieval French Poetry, they would.
The protesters want borders abolished because they want others to come cut their lawns, cook their food, wash their dishes and make their beds. They don't even realize that illegals take menial jobs because they can't get any other kind, not because they have a racial predilection for landscaping and vacuuming.
They want a guaranteed "living wage," free housing and free health care, even for the unemployed. With no idea how to earn an honest buck, a government-mandated check is the only way they'll be able to survive in a real world they've never been trained to face. They can't understand that someone has to provide all those things, either directly or through paying taxes. A collectivist system, under which people are forced to work for the benefit of others, has had many labels: fascism, communism, totalitarianism, even slavery. These protesters have never been taught that charity only has moral value when it's voluntary.
Many years ago, it was sometimes said of those who majored in English that they should memorize the phrase "Would you like fries with that?" before graduation. For this generation, an English degree would be a step up -- as would a job at McDonald's. But they've been well trained to reject anything as lowly as a McJob, haven't they? They've been taught to hate capitalism itself, though it has provided them with everything they now demand as a "right." They've been spoiled in both common senses of the word -- pampered into uselessness and allowed to rot. We've let that happen to them. But at least those long-ago English majors would have understood the spectacular, stunning irony of hipsters posting pictures of themselves protesting "corporate greed" in designer clothing on Facebook using their iPhones.
We'd better focus on teaching the next generation after this properly, because too many of the kids about to enter the adult world will be dependent on their own children for support after their parents have passed on.
RPK out ;)
by beetree on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
LOL@ RPK! Waddya know!
Joan...try this one on: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/bush-clinton-play-blame-game-in-iraq/
The devil is in the details!
Days after Obama announced he would withdraw all troops by Dec. 31, 2011, Clinton was asked on “Meet the Press” if critics had a point that such a withdrawal would “endanger recent success in Iraq by not having any residual force?” She replied, “They should have raised those issues when President Bush agreed to the agreement to withdraw troops by the end of this year.”

by mrdarcy on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
by joanro on 13 March 2016 - 22:03

by mrdarcy on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
Joanro
by beetree on 13 March 2016 - 22:03
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top