(03-30-2018 12:36 PM)TechRocks Wrote: Bernie praised Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan socialism. Not my fault.
Quote:In an interview with The Washington Post in November 2006. “I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic socialist. … In Norway, parents get a paid year to care for infants. Finland and Sweden have national health care, free college, affordable housing and a higher standard of living. … . Why shouldn’t that appeal to our disappearing middle class?”
Quote:SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Sure. When I talk about democratic socialist, you know what I'm talking about?
Social Security, one of the most popular and important programs in this country, developed by FDR to give dignity and security to seniors. And it has been enormously successful at reducing poverty among seniors.
When I talk about democratic socialist, I am talking about Medicare, a single payer health care system for the elderly. And in my view, we should expand that concept to all people. I believe that everybody in this country should be entitled to health care as a right. And the most effective way to do it is through a Medicare for All single payer program.
When I talk about democratic socialist, I'm not looking at Venezuela. I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden.
(03-30-2018 12:36 PM)TechRocks Wrote: Bernie praised Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan socialism. Not my fault.
Quote:In an interview with The Washington Post in November 2006. “I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic socialist. … In Norway, parents get a paid year to care for infants. Finland and Sweden have national health care, free college, affordable housing and a higher standard of living. … . Why shouldn’t that appeal to our disappearing middle class?”
Quote:SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Sure. When I talk about democratic socialist, you know what I'm talking about?
Social Security, one of the most popular and important programs in this country, developed by FDR to give dignity and security to seniors. And it has been enormously successful at reducing poverty among seniors.
When I talk about democratic socialist, I am talking about Medicare, a single payer health care system for the elderly. And in my view, we should expand that concept to all people. I believe that everybody in this country should be entitled to health care as a right. And the most effective way to do it is through a Medicare for All single payer program.
When I talk about democratic socialist, I'm not looking at Venezuela. I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden.
That was in 2011 before the **** hit the fan in Venezuela. I'm sure his opinion has changed since then.
When I talk about democratic socialist, I'm not looking at Venezuela. I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden.
Please quote to where he praised Hugo Chavez.
I didn't make the claim there bucko about Hugo, I'm just adding some fuel to the stupid that is anyone that thinks Bernie's policies would be good for this country.
Of course Bernie is backtracking on Venezuela now that it has been proven to be a socialist wasteland. It's funny how these idiots change their tune to keep their idiotic dreams alive.
(03-30-2018 01:16 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: That was in 2011 before the **** hit the fan in Venezuela. I'm sure his opinion has changed since then.
When I talk about democratic socialist, I'm not looking at Venezuela. I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden.
Please quote to where he praised Hugo Chavez.
Praise Venezuelan socialism in 2011 but you're not praising Hugo Chavez.....okay. That tells me you have no clue that Chavez controlled everything that was going on in that country. And before the shyte had hit the fan? Hey numbnut, from 1998 to 2007, inflation was so bad Chavez had to drop 3 zeros from the currency.....Maduro is about to do it again. Highest inflation in the world my friend. Ain't socialism great?
No food, no medicine, no production, no hope. Yeah, Bernie in 2020!!!! That's the answer. Feel the Bern.
(03-30-2018 01:16 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: That was in 2011 before the **** hit the fan in Venezuela. I'm sure his opinion has changed since then.
When I talk about democratic socialist, I'm not looking at Venezuela. I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden.
Please quote to where he praised Hugo Chavez.
Praise Venezuelan socialism in 2011 but you're not praising Hugo Chavez.....okay. That tells me you have no clue that Chavez controlled everything that was going on in that country. And before the shyte had hit the fan? Hey numbnut, from 1998 to 2007, inflation was so bad Chavez had to drop 3 zeros from the currency.....Maduro is about to do it again. Highest inflation in the world my friend. Ain't socialism great?
No food, no medicine, no production, no hope. Yeah, Bernie in 2020!!!! That's the answer. Feel the Bern.
EXACTLY.
Shite doesn't just hit the fan because everything was peaches and cream. Socialism destroyed Venezuela and there's not positive outlook for them on the horizon.
(03-30-2018 09:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Regardless, the "rights" to the material sold are not even needed for weapons. Additionally, this deal was not the work of Hillary alone. It involved many other departments who had to sign off on it.
Of course.... but Hillary was certainly one of them... and a key one... and none of the others were running for the highest office in the land.
Not really. State was one vote out of like 9 government agencies. And she wasn't even the representative on the voting panel from State, which I realize is a minor detail, but it's still a detail.
Additionally, the guy who gave nearly all the money to the CF no longer had any stake in the party to the deal, so he gained nothing from it.
All of which pretty much means nothing.
Do you really believe that if Hillary let it be known through back channels that she wanted to deal to go through, that any of the nine would ave been willing to risk being Vince Fostered? What better way to give cover than to have over folks do the actual voting. Do you really think they voted independently? Really?
And if the guy who gave the money did it to curry favor for the deal, do you really think that goes away if he leaves the deal? For that matter it takes a whole lot less imagination to figure out ways he could have benefitted from the deal than it does to figure out how the circumstantial evidence to date links Trump to any collusion with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.
Dude, you used to be a credible poster. Now you're bordering on the precipice of the ignore feature. Wow...just wow.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2018 08:41 AM by Redwingtom.)
(03-30-2018 09:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Regardless, the "rights" to the material sold are not even needed for weapons. Additionally, this deal was not the work of Hillary alone. It involved many other departments who had to sign off on it.
Of course.... but Hillary was certainly one of them... and a key one... and none of the others were running for the highest office in the land.
Not really. State was one vote out of like 9 government agencies. And she wasn't even the representative on the voting panel from State, which I realize is a minor detail, but it's still a detail.
Additionally, the guy who gave nearly all the money to the CF no longer had any stake in the party to the deal, so he gained nothing from it.
All of which pretty much means nothing.
Do you really believe that if Hillary let it be known through back channels that she wanted to deal to go through, that any of the nine would ave been willing to risk being Vince Fostered? What better way to give cover than to have over folks do the actual voting. Do you really think they voted independently? Really?
And if the guy who gave the money did it to curry favor for the deal, do you really think that goes away if he leaves the deal? For that matter it takes a whole lot less imagination to figure out ways he could have benefitted from the deal than it does to figure out how the circumstantial evidence to date links Trump to any collusion with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.
Dude, you used to be a credible poster. Now you're bordering on precipice of the ignore feature. Wow...just wow.
Do you really believe that Hillary couldn't and didn't influence the vote?
(03-30-2018 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: Of course.... but Hillary was certainly one of them... and a key one... and none of the others were running for the highest office in the land.
Not really. State was one vote out of like 9 government agencies. And she wasn't even the representative on the voting panel from State, which I realize is a minor detail, but it's still a detail.
Additionally, the guy who gave nearly all the money to the CF no longer had any stake in the party to the deal, so he gained nothing from it.
All of which pretty much means nothing.
Do you really believe that if Hillary let it be known through back channels that she wanted to deal to go through, that any of the nine would ave been willing to risk being Vince Fostered? What better way to give cover than to have over folks do the actual voting. Do you really think they voted independently? Really?
And if the guy who gave the money did it to curry favor for the deal, do you really think that goes away if he leaves the deal? For that matter it takes a whole lot less imagination to figure out ways he could have benefitted from the deal than it does to figure out how the circumstantial evidence to date links Trump to any collusion with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.
Dude, you used to be a credible poster. Now you're bordering on precipice of the ignore feature. Wow...just wow.
Do you really believe that Hillary couldn't and didn't influence the vote?
So what...she likely supported the deal, as did most, because it was fricking harmless and in now way corrupt. To imply that she had something to do with Foster's suicide and that she would do it again for this deal, is in a word, insane. You're better than that.
(03-30-2018 11:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Not really. State was one vote out of like 9 government agencies. And she wasn't even the representative on the voting panel from State, which I realize is a minor detail, but it's still a detail.
Additionally, the guy who gave nearly all the money to the CF no longer had any stake in the party to the deal, so he gained nothing from it.
All of which pretty much means nothing.
Do you really believe that if Hillary let it be known through back channels that she wanted to deal to go through, that any of the nine would ave been willing to risk being Vince Fostered? What better way to give cover than to have over folks do the actual voting. Do you really think they voted independently? Really?
And if the guy who gave the money did it to curry favor for the deal, do you really think that goes away if he leaves the deal? For that matter it takes a whole lot less imagination to figure out ways he could have benefitted from the deal than it does to figure out how the circumstantial evidence to date links Trump to any collusion with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.
Dude, you used to be a credible poster. Now you're bordering on precipice of the ignore feature. Wow...just wow.
Do you really believe that Hillary couldn't and didn't influence the vote?
So what...she likely supported the deal, as did most, because it was fricking harmless and in now way corrupt. To imply that she had something to do with Foster's suicide and that she would do it again for this deal, is in a word, insane. You're better than that.
No, I'm not, and never was. Sorry to burst your "credible poster" bubble. It's not like a give a care what you think.
(03-30-2018 08:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: 1. I was never with her, I was with Bernie.
2. I voted for her as it was the only way to try and stop trump from being elected.
3. I've said repeatedly that she needs to just go away from the public eye.
But none of that changes the fact that these two clowns have no business being given a platform on fox to say unchallenged that somehow Hillary gave Russia nuclear frickin' weapons!
(04-02-2018 08:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Do you really believe that Hillary couldn't and didn't influence the vote?
Exactly. Look at how many votes from Dems she got in 2008, and then again in 2016... and she was SOS which may be one of 9 agencies, but when dealing with international trade, especially of military significance like nuclear materials... she was hardly some fly on the wall.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2018 01:30 PM by Hambone10.)
(04-02-2018 08:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Do you really believe that Hillary couldn't and didn't influence the vote?
Exactly. Look at how many votes from Dems she got in 2008, and then again in 2016... and she was SOS which may be one of 9 agencies, but when dealing with international trade, especially of military significance like nuclear materials... she was hardly some fly on the wall.
It still matters not. There was nothing at all controversial with this transaction. Nothing.
It was never anything more than a lame right-wing talking point.
(04-02-2018 01:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: It still matters not. There was nothing at all controversial with this transaction. Nothing.
It was never anything more than a lame right-wing talking point.
Yeah... the left doesn't have any of those, do they.... most of the recent ones about the same people.
Tell you what, I'll play.... when they do an investigation like they have with the election and come back with that response, I'll accept it... lol
Sure the left does this, but what does that have to do with anything? Two wrongs never make a right. This was still never an issue and I'm pretty sure you know that. Regardless, there's nothing to investigate, and certainly NOTHING like what Mueller is investigating. To suggest otherwise is downright crazy.
(04-02-2018 01:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: It still matters not. There was nothing at all controversial with this transaction. Nothing.
It was never anything more than a lame right-wing talking point.
Yeah... the left doesn't have any of those, do they.... most of the recent ones about the same people.
Tell you what, I'll play.... when they do an investigation like they have with the election and come back with that response, I'll accept it... lol
Sure the left does this, but what does that have to do with anything? Two wrongs never make a right. This was still never an issue and I'm pretty sure you know that. Regardless, there's nothing to investigate, and certainly NOTHING like what Mueller is investigating. To suggest otherwise is downright crazy.
Maybe I wasn't clear.....
sorry
2012 Obama chastises Romney for saying Russia is our biggest threat and we deliver them nuclear material which of course they already had lots of, so why do they need more? Peaceful applications? Maybe/probably... but would we deliver such materials to N. Korea? I think not.
2016 Hillary loses to Trump and the left blames Russia... they put sanctions in place for hacking, despite knowing that they've been doing similar things for decades. Why didn't they do it when they warned the DNC in 2015 that attempts had been made?
I think the issue for a small number of people (on both sides) is that they choose to see things their way always... but for far more people, it's the inconsistency that we can trust Russia to 'play nice' with more nuclear material, but we can't trust them to access the internet?
Collusion with Russia (I'm confident) will similarly turn out to be 'not an issue'. I think for most people that's been the case for months.
It's not about 'they did it too'.... It's about whether we treat Russia as an ally or an adversary or something in between. I even understand taking a 'case specific' approach to it.... but them trying to influence our elections is a decades old game, as are attempts to hack computer systems, which Hillary in specific was very publicly scorned for.
(This post was last modified: 04-03-2018 02:30 PM by Hambone10.)
What was sold to Russia was rights. Not material. And it's not weapons grade material regardless. Not to mention that Russia already has more than enough of the weapons making material, as well as stockpiled weapons already ready to fire.
Couple that with the guy who donated all the money long abandoning all his interests around the deal, and you have exactly what I said, NOTHING! The Facts on Uranium One
Additionally, on the whole, the "left" did not blame Russia for the Hillary loss. That's little more than a trump talking point for his minions.
(04-02-2018 01:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: It still matters not. There was nothing at all controversial with this transaction. Nothing.
It was never anything more than a lame right-wing talking point.
Yeah... the left doesn't have any of those, do they.... most of the recent ones about the same people.
Tell you what, I'll play.... when they do an investigation like they have with the election and come back with that response, I'll accept it... lol
Sure the left does this, but what does that have to do with anything? Two wrongs never make a right. This was still never an issue and I'm pretty sure you know that. Regardless, there's nothing to investigate, and certainly NOTHING like what Mueller is investigating. To suggest otherwise is downright crazy.
Guess we'll find out. Cause they're investigating it!
(04-02-2018 01:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: It still matters not. There was nothing at all controversial with this transaction. Nothing.
It was never anything more than a lame right-wing talking point.
Yeah... the left doesn't have any of those, do they.... most of the recent ones about the same people.
Tell you what, I'll play.... when they do an investigation like they have with the election and come back with that response, I'll accept it... lol
Sure the left does this, but what does that have to do with anything? Two wrongs never make a right. This was still never an issue and I'm pretty sure you know that. Regardless, there's nothing to investigate, and certainly NOTHING like what Mueller is investigating. To suggest otherwise is downright crazy.
Guess we'll find out. Cause they're investigating it!
(04-02-2018 01:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: It still matters not. There was nothing at all controversial with this transaction. Nothing.
It was never anything more than a lame right-wing talking point.
Yeah... the left doesn't have any of those, do they.... most of the recent ones about the same people.
Tell you what, I'll play.... when they do an investigation like they have with the election and come back with that response, I'll accept it... lol
Sure the left does this, but what does that have to do with anything? Two wrongs never make a right. This was still never an issue and I'm pretty sure you know that. Regardless, there's nothing to investigate, and certainly NOTHING like what Mueller is investigating. To suggest otherwise is downright crazy.
Guess we'll find out. Cause they're investigating it!
Who is?
DOJ, led by IG Huber. It'll be one part of what he delves in to, so I guess we'll find out about any potential "irregularities" here soon enough.
Praise Venezuelan socialism in 2011 but you're not praising Hugo Chavez.....okay. 
![[Image: funny.gif]](http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/10/funny.gif)
