Now to be honest I do not (as I am sure no one) likes being called
"politically ILL INFORMED partisan...brainwashed by... masters... IGNORANTLY spew[ing]/ believe[ing]/ buy[ing] into [the] Democrat Socialist Mentality to further their agenda of turning the USA into Socialist country."
Honestly, and with respect, that kind of statement belies your deep knowledge and thoughtful analysis and makes debating you less enjoyable for me and others in this textual format.
I also have been educated and my parents also taught me critical thinking skills. I don't feel like an ignorant ill informed partisan' I feel like a well read, open minded and thoughtful person. I might be wrong.
I personally do not seek marxist-leninist style "socialism" that occured in Venezuela and elsewhere. I understand clearly that command economies do not work and always fail. History has taught us that no human or group of humans is capable of managing a national economy without relying on some level of open-market planning.
I am sure you understand the vast difference between marxism socialism (ala Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez) and the European style (so called) democratic-socialism which has many success stories (and yes a few failures). [I can also name several so-called capitalist states that are in worse shape than Venezuela. Somalia and Indonesia come to mind.]
As I said in another post. It is not all good or all bad each idea has varying degrees of both.
Just. Wow. OK then.
You do realise that we pay for Social Security and medicare for our entire working lives, up until retirement, right? It's our money rightfully, not welfare.
Jerry that is true. I don't understand how some say social security is same as welfare. We do make payments into the system every time we get paid. Maybe the people who say that have always been paid under the table and have been cheating us all out of our retirement funds :?)
Agreed to a point.
Some people work and pay more, some less. The point is, it is there when you need it. Some people want to take it away.
You do realize that in Russia people work, pay taxes, including mandatory health-care tax. Right? They have a 'single payer model' there is no private insurance.
I just find it heartening that Trump supports like Russia's 'socialist' system. Putin is still pretty far left of most current democratics in term of social support system.
Russia, despite its effort to open markets, is still a chiefly socialist country.
I do not subscribe to the idea that a thing (person or idea) is either good or bad. Everything is both. Every idea has positive points and negative points. Every person does some good and some bad.
I have pointed out several times here the good in things I see Trump doing, and I point out the bad in some things I see him doing as well. That doesn't make me a 'hater', it makes me a 'thinker'. I don't hate Trump (or anyone). I do, however, have very strong disagreements with some of his policies - just as I had strong disagreements with some of Obama's policies (bank bailouts being one example that comes to mind, taking out Gaddafi is another.)
Russia's current leadership behaves in ways that are abhorrent to the sensibilities of most Americans, they also have some policies that seem to me to be good, like single payer health care (SPHC) and open markets. On the other hand suppression of free-press, expansionism, and dirigisme do, in my opinion, go against the fundamental American morals.
On the other hand, I see that (like everything else in this world) SPHC has both advantages and disadvantages. I happen to think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Others disagree with me. I don't hate them for that - I thank them for debating.
It is up to us a individuals to decide, based on our own moral-value judgements, which aspects of each policy are good and which are bad.
Having decided we should vote for those representatives (in our republic) that support the policy we (personally) find most advantageous and morally positive. That is how our so-called democracy works.
We debate, we decide, and then we vote. We don't have to agree, but we should be civil.
Typo there? I think you mean to say "supporters" instead of "supports?"
I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters don't go for socialized health care. This one doesn't.
Maybe they should move to Russia....
Vic who are those old guys?
He has no idea.
Budwick is correct. Just a couple of Trump supports who see the value of moving to universal health care - I guess.
It's all guesswork for me, Gronk.
I was not given the immense intellectual advantage of omniscience like some here seem to have. I have to think and put the pieces together.
What's it like to have such clear and all-seeing vision where you can weed out the 'real truth' from the myriad of conflicting information that presents itself in our modern society?
You wrote - "I don't feel like an ignorant ill informed partisan'"
And yet, you are!
No apology needed.
My sympathies go to you. It is a burden to be sure.
I was raised Christian. Thanks for asking.
"For I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me,
I was sick and you visited me,
I was in prison and you came to me.’
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Actually it is to point out that our "agenda" is His agenda.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Somehow, Vic, you always dodge this part of "His agenda". Striking too close to home, perhaps?
Not at all. Surrounded by it. Lots of folks have unpure hearts yet profess to follow.
Yeah, like Marcia Fudge, for example.
(see especially 1:06 of the clip)
I do. I must have missed the part were he said
"unless they are brown, then they get no fish at all, instead take away their children and kick them out of your country - do not teach them to fish and do not treat them like brothers. However if they are white, then go ahead and treat them like brothers and teach them to fish."
James Alicie and Richard M. Birchfield.
According to the photog (Plezer) the guys made these shirts themselves.
According to Julia Davis a company in Russia is now manufacturing knock-off because there is a "high demand" among Trump supporters.
Julia Davis - the British comedienne?
Great research there Vic.
Your credibility continues to circle the drain.
I just reported the news. I doubt you and your buddies will be lining up to buy these. I don't doubt that a Russian manufacturer will try to sell them.
You really think that is news!
Are you a producer at CNN?
How do you define news? Words that confirm you personal bias?
to me news is anything I did complete make up. Which admitted is a small portion of what I say, but I didn';t make up the word of Ms. Davis, She said it and I reported it.
And failed to 'report' that she isn't a legitimate source.
Dance around your dishonesty all you want - I know you don't believe in truth / honesty anyway.
Legitimate source? Like who?
You want to stick with your bullshit story?
Legitimate sources are ones that have credible access to the truth of the matter. REAL journalists are required to have 3 corroborating sources.
Cool. Name one.
Sure, regarding baseball for example, let's say the Indians specifically good credible sources might be,
Tom Hamilton - long time Indian announcer
Terry Francona - The Indians Manager
Bob DiBiasio - Senior Vice President, Public Affairs
Robert Dinioro - not so much
Whoopee Goldberg - ahh, no
Julia Davis - nope
Lol. I meant a real journalist.
We were talking about sources.
The only journalists I know that were honest, for truth, justice and the American way were Lois Lane, Clark Kent and Jimmy Olson.
Amen. We can talk all we want, but you can't separate people from their bias.
If we could, every news article would contain the entire internet, there is always some bit of information someone thinks was left unreported and therefore biased the report.
We can demand that journalists be ethical however.
We can demand that they source their information with corroboration. We can insist that stories are accurate and truthful. And, we can eliminate those that don't play by the rules.
Good luck with that. Who's the unbiased jack that gets to enforce that one?
They used to enforce it themselves. You know pride in a job well done, call the bad guys out. I think it's the industry as a whole.
** An Idea - Not Stating As Fact ***
Maybe things went south when the Internet became so popular and the news cycle so fast. And journalists just started saying, 'Phuck it, I'm sending this in as is. It'll be old news in 24 hours anyway."
But, that doesn't help the public. And they have lost their credibility.
Makes sense and part of the reason I say we cannot know the truth on any subject. Everything looks different from every angle, and information is coming in so fast that by the time is registers in my brain it is already changed.
If we waited, as you said, for all relevant information to be available, nothing would ever get posted.
Wait for corroboration.
NOT wait for all relevant information to be available.
Get that hyperbole in check Vic.
So Arianna Huffington said it, Rachel Maddow corroborated, Jon Stewart said he saw it himself.
Must be true!
I still don't believe, but you can bet I'll repeat it!
I'll trust Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen, Bud, but I'm not so sure about Clark Kent.
neanderthal you got that right. People plan for their future very badly.
Tell that to those guy who prefer Russia over the US. Thye support Trump.