Y’all haven’t been much interested in anything I’ve shown you today. See if you can get into any of these:
- BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! — Trey Gowdy says he now has 4,000 documents from the State Department that no one investigating Benghazi has seen before! So that means this is likely to go on and on and on! And on!
- McCartney still coming, but Vanilla Ice is postponing — Did you know he was coming before? No? Then maybe that’s why he’s not coming now…
- Psychologists’ Group Said to Collaborate on Torture Stance — NYT reports that, even though you thought it was all Bush’s fault, it was also the shrinks’ fault.
- Bernie Sanders seeks Democratic nomination for president — Boy, Hillary’s in trouble now! She’s got a socialist running against her! Is there an emoji for sarcasm? He says he’s in it to win. So I need an emoji that’s like really, really sarcastic… Until I find one, I’ll just go with this:
Related Posts
The thing about Benghazi is that no one who would vote for Hillary cares about it, and those who do care about would never vote for Hillary. It’s too much like Ken Starr’s witch hunt for Whitewater that only yielded a blue dress.
A true democrat would vote for Sanders.
Sander reminds me of Christopher Lloyd’s character from the Back to the Future Trilogy. He’s smart and flamboyant but isn’t very polished. He won’t win of course but I do like him and his ideas. Sanders isn’t really a Socialist but frankly socialism has gotten a pretty bad rap over the years. Given the many, many, many failures of our increasingly unfettered capitalist economy perhaps a good dose of socialism would do us some good.
A deserved bad “rap” in many cases.
Bernie has no chance – and yes- isn’t polished in the least. He makes Mark Sanford look polished. That’s bad.
Hillary is happy he’s in. Those that wanted a “fight” on the left can argue that they now have their fight- even though no one with common sense believes it.
It’s as organized and planned as anything else these days. Bernie will “run” for a little while, get a lot of press I New York, and Boston, and then will drop out and wholeheartedly support Hillary.
Sanders makes Hillary look like a spring chicken in comparison. Sanders is so old that I’m pretty sure Sanders calls himself a socialist because his chemistry lab partner in high school was Lenin. 🙂
Bryan, whether intented’ or not, you power of observation is better than average.
What other plausible candidate could exemplify Hillary’s pre-Botox youth and eventually throw all of his own support dutifully to her?
Clinton’s managers may have arranged some of the promises to fund another Bernie run.
As explained above by KF’s cogent election logic, Saunders is even less a threat to Hillary’s campaign than Benghazi.
“Bryan, whether intented’ or not, you power of observation is better than average.”
Coincidentally, that’s what they called me back in my high school days: Bryan “Better than Average” Caskey
Socialism is pretty good. The happiest people are supposed to be the Danes, with their socialized system. There’s a strong correlation between happiness in a culture and socialism. I think most of us like a more just distribution of wealth (not plutocrats, like certain commentators), even if it means we get less.
I always figured the Danes were happy because they are the home of Lego.
Happier socialists? Care to list the “happy” socialist nations without royalty set asides, with lower suicide rates than the U.S., and without worker strikes for higher pay?
Currently, a strike by Iceland’s lawyer is interfering with realty sales due to extra fees buys must remit to sign purchase contracts. Yes, socialists are very happy according to Norway’s surveys.
It’s interesting, and a bit annoying, to see what has happened to the term Socialist in American usage. Plainly and simply, Socialism involves public or common ownership of the means of production. It does not mean, as is often implied by the way it’s used in the US, merely the regulation of those same means, the taming of unfettered private interest to the benefit of the common good or the attempt to bring a greater measure of equity to the economic order. Sure, Socialists also championed other causes, chief among them expanded worker rights and workplace safety. But the core of historic Socialism was government ownership of industrial capacities. No one – not even Bernie Sanders – is pushing for that nowadays. But I applaud any effort by the likes of Sanders to shift the Democratic Party’s focus to economic concerns, rather than allow itself to be defined by “cultural issues.”
You and bud both used “unfettered” to describe our current system. I challenge you to start your own business and tell me if you feel unfettered.
Well now, that was referring to the way things would be in the kind of laissez-faire paradise you might dream of as contrasted to the way things are — which isn’t capitalism pure. (No where on earth is capitalism in its purest form practiced.) Thank goodness we’ve made at least a little progress over the years — though there are some, both now and in the past, who’ve resisted that progress or sought to turn back the clock. Which is my point, of course: We owe that progress not so much to folks who were out-and-out Socialists, though there were some of those in the mix, too, but to the broader population of progressives, union organizers and others with a social conscience.
Don’t lump Progressives with union organizers. The former may be about social conscience; but the latter type is strictly out for power and spoils.
Au contraire! Progressives and union-organizers were practically synonymous during the height of the labor movement. If you look back at the history of the labor movement in America, you’ll find that to be so.
And whatever you may think of unions in general, they sure don’t play much of a role in SC, where less than 2% of private-sector workers are organized. The state could well do with a higher rate of unionization. Employers are certainly organized. So should workers be.
Yeah, Theodore Roosevelt was a real union man…
Oh well now, there were Progressives and there were progressive-minded Republicans. There’s a difference. TR dipped into Progressive ideas but he was reform-minded primarily as contrasted with the “Old Guard” dinosaurs in his own party.
Our problem nowadays is, so many in the “GOP” wanna take us back to the dinosaur days.
Roosevelt was OG. Really OG.
You’ve not got it correct here: Roosevelt and the Progressives were against the new money barons who trampled on everyone to put every dollar in their pocket no matter the cost to people, society, political structure or the environment. Roosevelt’s conservatism didn’t brook that. He wanted capitalism to be conducted under the rule of law. He wanted social order and widely possible opportunity.
Progressives are conservatives who look ahead to what is possible rather than back at what has been. Progressives are Liberal Conservatives. It isn’t an oxymoron.
Nice trick — or at least an attempt at one. But you’re splitting hairs four ways to Christmas by trying to force fit practically everybody and everything into the conservative camp, as if it were a case of all those “nice” liberal conservatives vs. a bunch of Wobbly “rabble” or what not.
Really, you should go read a nice history or bio. I’d suggest Edmund Morris’s Theodore Rex, which puts TR nicely into context — including his run-ins with the Old Guard in his party – and does so in a very readable style.
Oh and just by the by, if you don’t think unions were also involved in the struggle against those money barons you mentioned or that American workers would’ve advanced to the position it had by the 1950s, you really, REALLY need to investigate history a bit more.
Selected gifs for sarcastic tone:
(Draper)
(Almost Famous)
(Fargo)
You may dis Bernie Sanders all you want, but be prepared to hear well-articulated positions, backed by facts and details rather than irrelevant personal attacks and misleading generalities. He digs deeply into issues and doesn’t back down from reckless rhetorical opposition. Label all you want, but you will likely hear policy-oriented campaigning until you are over-full.