Recent comments

  • Regarding that pesky “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment, what exactly did it mean?   19 hours 43 min ago

    http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29.htm

    try this for an explanation of the second amendment in particular and some comments on rights in general.

  • Senator Sanders is now on the Hillary train, and we should be too..   19 hours 46 min ago

    Political Science 1:01

    Because the United States has the electoral college, which is winner take all in each state, we are effectively forced into two parties in the only national election we have, that for president. Voting for a third party in the president election is throwing your vote away.

    It has been argued that this system forces America parties to be coalitions of various regional and issue groups as opposed to the parliament system where you can vote for a party that is just about an individual causes. Then in the parliamentary the multiple parties former coalitions after the election. It is argued by some that this can lead to small single issue parties to have way too much power because they can be the members of parliaments that join with one of the larger parties to give them the majority. This it is argued is why the ultra religious parties have far more influence than their numbers in Israel, India, and some Muslim countries.

    We voters here in the United States at least have final say over the coalition. Also, it would take a constitutional amendment to change this. There is a weighted system used in Australia that I don't really understand, but I think it might be a fairer system. However, if we were going to change the electoral college we would have to get the less populous states to ratify the amendment, but almost any change to the current system would result in a big loss of power for these less populous states so the probably won't go along with it.

    So the bottom line is at least at the presidental level for most Americans, it will be a choice between the lesser of two evils.

    But not for me in this election. I have followed Hillary Clinton for years and I think she is the politician that over the last 30 years is closest to my ideas. I do care about income inequality, but I care more about human rights, including women's and children's right. I have been poor and lived in crappy nieghborhoods much of my live. I care more about getting sensible gun regulations and control of the opioid addiction problems than regulating the banks.

    I think I and Hillary probably are closer to middle and working class Americans sense of what actually matters in their lives. For those who don't feel that way, you will have to do what most of us do in most elections, choose which of the two coalitions you find the less offensive.

    This is how our politics works. Deal with it.

  • Here's What's the Matter with Kansas…   20 hours 29 min ago

    Mark, old buddy old pal. No where in my comment did I mention any parties. They both borrow way to much. Our grandchildren are going to pay no matter who borrows. All I am saying us let's think of them.

    How are thing going for you. I hope we'll.

  • Regarding that pesky “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment, what exactly did it mean?   21 hours 11 min ago
    Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,

    Washington responded...calling on governors
    ☛ 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors

    Quote Ulysses: I'll not engage in hyperbole or rancor as I disagree with some of my fellow progressives. Factually, the Reserves and the National Guard did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified.

    Apr. 4, 2016 2:23 pm

    Neither was the 18th amendment. Going back to the notes of the first draft brings comments that have no place in reality when they don't reach the final draft. I won't accept punctuation as arbitrary or redefining commas and periods. The entire bogus gun selling argument is based on groups with allegiance to their own concoctions over the country. Most of which would side with prisons and cops in the for profit prohibition war. The only concern for Liberty is so the steel industry and bullet makers sell guns. Military weapons of mass destruction to hicks with an old milwaukee and chaw of tobacci shooting up abandoned cars on blocks. How many are stolen and end up with terrorists? Do they even know how many are manufactured? If its truly a right, then they should be free. Who do I call, the NRA or ATF? Seems all this fuss is over improper grammar lessons or too many skipping class to make bang noises. What you "believe" is sorta irrelevant. Like Ganja, it is or it isn't. Its a plant. The second amendment is a comment, with words and the paraphernalia of wording. Its like the sun, it is or it isn't. I don't believe the sun is shining. Someone named it and described it and low and behold, there it is.

    Quote Ulysses:I don't see how "militia" could have meant anything other than the armed yeoman citizenry.

    It was the yeoman citizenry, trained by the state and under the command of the governor. Not citizens loaded for bear vigilantes or insurgents as the tax dodgers of Pittsburgh in the Whiskey Rebellion. Brought down by the militias of 4 states, loaned to Washington by the governors. The Militias were the same as FBI at Waco or Ruby Ridge. Workin fer the guvmint. Bundy is not a Militia outside of his moniker. In 1903? the state Militias formed the National Guard to this day. Only Bush was never told that National meant here at home and not to keep regular Army body counts down sending them to Iraq. Maybe payback for going AWOL and getting wrist slapped when he was in the Guard avoiding Vietnam. But this is all posted and not very complicated. The second pretaining to arms bearing clearly states in one statement, that the militias rights will not be infringed upon. So if you are a member of a Militia before 1903? Then no locals could ban your guns. It did not include slaves, kids, women or unstable or prisoners. When it became a regulated force as the National Guard the state Militias were moot. The gun clubs calling themselves militias are not protected by the second amendment anymore than living in corporate neighborhoods banning guns and legal pot. Or at the work place. Its a diversion and fear mongering hate to sell guns and win elections. At the expense of common sense that shit kickers swigging beers should not have Military Assault rifles or anthrax or jet bombers. All of this and more has been posted and is easy to find. Whiskey Rebellion, Army National Guard. As state-funded militia under various names: 1636–1903. As federal reserve forces called the Army National Guard: 1903–present.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    A well regulated Militia,(comma) being necessary to the security of a free State,(comma) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,(comma) shall not be infringed.

    comma: a punctuation mark (,) used to indicate the separation of elements within the grammatical structure of a sentence.

  • Trump's VP Pick Prediction   21 hours 36 min ago

    Toddedyer, can you read? I did NOT say your post was a lie or that you were wrong. I said the article that you provided a link to was a lie. It contradicts your posts now. Now one thing you need to do is write better. You post a lot here. Do what I do. Edit your posts after you write them for more clarity.

    Now regarding your more clearly written post now. I do agree with you that most people are ignorant regardng TPP. And yes, it may even be 90% of the U.S. population. As an example, a friend of mine who is licensed as an accountant and an attorney after I mentioned TPP to him said he had never heard of TPP. So I needed to give him a brief explanation. I hope it is O.K. to agree with you on this that most of the U.S. population has not heard of TPP.

    Here is the title to the article that you posted a link to:

    Americans favor TPP, but less than those in other countries do

    And here is some of the text that YOU posted a link to.

    Overall, 49% of Americans say that TPP would be a good thing for their country, while 29% think it would be a bad thing. When the survey was administered in April and May, the debate over giving Obama fast-track authority — which would enhance his ability to negotiate TPP without fear of it being modified by Congress — had not yet gained the full attention of Americans. Consequently, 12% volunteered that they had not heard enough about TPP to make a judgment, and a further 9% did not answer the question. In general, Americans see free trade agreements as good for the country.

    The above text of the article that you posted a link to contradicts your post above. Why do you want to post a link to an article that contradicts your recent posts? And without my explaination on earlier posts here, would you have even heard of TPP?

  • SOCIAL SECURITY TO LAST 1,000 YEARS: CAP RAISED TO $1 BILLION DOLLARS!   21 hours 52 min ago

    There should be no limit. Most Americans including myself pay for SSI on all they earn.Some will say this is unfair,most will not. I will call it RESTITUTION.

  • Mandatory treatment not effective at reducing drug use, violates human rights   22 hours 44 min ago
    Quote gumball: And if they refuse and prefer to live on the streets shooting up?

    Why are they your concern? Who assigned their life to you or Obama? Or is it just certain aspects not to your liking? 2 million Americans live on the streets. Never seemed to be a talking point memo. That is due to economic greed in the housing market and prohibition forcing the issue to be dealt with in the black market. ACORN tried getting families out of the rent rackets and streets and the GOPers sabotaged them out of business. First you designate automatically as living on the streets, as if it was a poor issue. Plenty of rich junkies. Just don't notice them when its done properly. That's just about all that its about. Bayer invented heroin for pain, added it to aspirin. It's a faster pain relief. The entire prohibitionist mindset is not American or sane. Drug Czar?

    Ask Sam Stone
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9ZkYViEIs

    Forcing people by court order with torture and cages is far worse than the experience most have doing drugs. Blacklisting people for fraudulent testing. It is not a cop matter. It is a choice doctors perform daily with patients. Ignorance leaves "bonafied" patients dead too. But they have a better chance with consistent dosages and pure ingredients with no adulterations. The obvious red flag this is a crusade to program lifestyles and punish nonconformists. One big happy scientology experiment. Call it a heroin deficiency and like diabetics, no big deal. Cannabis as an EndoCannaBinoid supplement explains why abstainers fear centers are larger. Afraid to think for themselves or out of the box.

    Even if someone made a choice to stop using, There are no places to treat them. Many are filled with plea bargain pot growers. Prohibitionists require junkies to give them information for free dope or not getting busted. Not reliable, but good enough for SWAT to kick down doors. Or they sit in a cage at $35k/yr going towards the Koch profits on maxcap contracts and NRA mandatory minimum sentencing. Much less cost and loss of dignity for the country doing a safe access maintenance program. Over which hunts and persecuting millions of Americans. Cannabis is still considered the same class as heroin, Nothing has changed under Obama except its a lower priority for enforcements. Only with cannabis in states adhering to the state law..The Drug Racketeers and Prohibitionists have made over a Trillion tax dollars on lies , catch 22s and intimidation. The latest...

    Democratic Senators Push DEA to Downgrade MJ

    But regardless of the FDA’s decision, the DEA is required by law to do its own analysis, he said

    What he neglected to say...

    Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie

    The Tragic, Pseudoscientific Practice of Forcing Addicts to ‘Hit Rock Bottom’

    dwr: He’s talking about Maia Szalavitz’s new book: Unbroken Brain: A Revolutionary New Way of Understanding Addiction

    Or, as Szalavitz put it to the Daily Beast: “If you don’t learn that a drug helps you cope or make you feel good, you wouldn’t know what to crave. People fall in love with a substance or an activity, like gambling. Falling in love doesn’t harm your brain, but it does produce a unique type of learning that causes craving, alters choices and is really hard to forget.”

    This can help explain many little-known facts about drug addiction: for example, that the vast majority of people who try even drugs like heroin will not become addicted to them; or that early-life trauma hugely increases the odds of becoming addicted to a substance. To take an oversimplified hypothetical: If someone first offers you alcohol at a time when you’re dealing with serious family issues, unresolved trauma, and other addiction risk factors, you’re more likely to develop an unhealthy relationship with the substance than if your first sip comes at a time when stuff is going okay for you. Many, many factors intermingle in complicated ways to determine whether a given individual will develop an addiction. […]

    But throughout her book, Szalavitz argues, and argues compellingly, that when it comes to “hitting bottom” and so many of the other pseudoscientific approaches to fighting addiction, the actual goal — or part of it, at least — has always been to marginalize the addict, to set them apart and humiliate them. There’s a deep impulse to draw a clear, bold line between us, the healthy people, and them, the addicts. What clearer way to emphasize that divide than to cast them down into a rock-bottom pit, away from the rest of us?

    Police and Prison Guard Groups Fight Marijuana Legalization in California
    ROUGHLY HALF OF the money raised to oppose a ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana in California is coming from police and prison guard groups, terrified that they might lose the revenue streams to which they have become so deeply addicted.

    Why won't politicians admit the truth: life is hard, and drugs are fun?

    Here is the politically unspeakable truth: life is hard and drugs are fun. Drugs can also be dangerous, and criminalising their use and sale only makes them more so. The “war on drugs” has been a catastrophic failure, destroying lives, clogging up the court and prison systems and costing untold billions from the public purse that could better be spent helping people. “Most of us take drugs of some form on a daily basis, and appreciate the benefits they bring,” writes David Nutt, Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and a former chair of the government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. “Becoming more aware of the reasons we like them so much, and how we can maximise their beneficial aspects while minimising the harm they do, is a challenge that needs to be taken up by individuals, communities and governments.”
    Dr. Andrew Weil of the University of Arizona College of Medicine states, "There is not a shred of hope from history or from cross-culture studies to suggest that human beings can live without psychoactive substances." Bees drop to the ground after having nectar from certain orchards. Birds get drunk off berries and then fly into windows. After cats sniff certain plants they swing at imaginary objects. Certain range weeds will make cows shake, twitch, and stumble back for more. Elephants purposely get drunk on fermented fruits..."

    New Report Blasts DEA For Spending 4 Decades Obstructing Marijuana Science

    The Drug Enforcement Administration has been impeding and ignoring the science on marijuana and other drugs for more than four decades, according to a report released this week by the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug policy reform group, and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a marijuana research organization.

    “The DEA is a police and propaganda agency,” Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said Wednesday. “It makes no sense for it to be in charge of federal decisions involving scientific research and medical practice.”

    Not only are we here to protect the public from vicious criminals in the street but also to protect the public from harmful ideas.
    -- Robert Ingersoll,
    then Director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, in a column by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, June 24, 1972, p. 31 (Ingersoll became the first director of the DEA in 1974)

    "Ideas are more powerful than guns.
    We would not let our enemies have guns,
    why should we let them have ideas."
    ~ Joseph Stalin

    "At DEA, our mission is to fight drug trafficking in order to make drug abuse the most expensive, unpleasant, risky, and disreputable form of recreation a person could have."
    – Donnie Marshall,
    Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)

  • Gun Control we have been here before   22 hours 58 min ago

    I wanted to comment on the publicity stunt held in congress this week,me personally i am for a ban of all guns except hunting rifles.

    And i realized this week that the gun debate is about whites peoples fears,

    pro gun, that a black man breaking into your home or killing you ing the street, and on the anti gun side is the fear of being killed in a mss shooting by a crazy person at some random public place.

    The chances of this happening are slim to none on both sides, but the local and national media blast these stories and most likely if you were to die from gun violence, it would be by somebody you know.

    But i was sickened by the stunt by the democrats in congress this week. Not because i disagree with their stance.

    But i saw it as a stunt, i do believe they believe what they are fighting for, but the dems in congress who have taken a beating this primary for their lack of support for the progressive movement, so know they have to pull this stunt to try to show the progressive base they are fighting for the people , just something that doesn't effect the pockets of wall street.

    so instead of having the dem base in their back pocket, and then campaign that they are neutral on guns to court middle of the road voters. They needed an issue that would show progressives they are the good side, look on how good we are on the issues of guns that kill people.

    and they were forced into this by Bernie Sanders. They never seem to hold a sit in when it comes to the factors the create income inequality.

    When they hold control of the house and senate in 2009 and they did not want to touch gun rights with a 20 foot stick, and its not like mass shooting are this recent phenomenon. they just had the virgin tech shooting the prior year.

    So i perceive this as a stunt, and they know they have no shot at getting this past, but they just want to show they progressive base, hey we tried but it was those evil republicans that stopped us, and say see were not so bad.

    But at a time when they could of made changes , they didn't want to cast a vote that would pass a law restricting gun right that would be used to against them in their next campaign.

    But with this wek stunt . if they try to say they held a sit in to repeal gun rights, they could respond with , i was trying to keep people on the no fly list from buying a gun.

  • Trump's VP Pick Prediction   23 hours 16 min ago
    Quote Mark the Shark:
    Quote Toddedyer:

    I honestly think you guys are just naïve with regards to the TPP! 90% of American's I would wager are clueless either completely on the TPP or are so with regards to what it will do.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/americans-favor-tpp-but-...

    Your guys honestly think there is hope this crap is not a done deal! Without massively changing the make up of Congress more so on the Republican side the ink is dry on this whole sale rape of the American people.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/24/obama-confident-trans...

    Most Americans know more about the Kardashians than things like the tpp and until that changes this country is seriously F'D!

    That is a LYING LINK that you posted here, saying that most Americans favor TPP. Most people do not know about TPP in this nation. And all this LYING LINK will do is get people like me to explain how TPP is bad for the U.S. Then when they see the details of it, at least 90% of the people will oppose it.

    As an example, I was at a meeting with the U.S. Trade Deficit Representative, Michael Froman at Stanford university a few months ago and he came there to promote TPP. And even with these people I handed out information to them showing the negatives of TPP as they were either walking into the event or leaving the event. And after looking at the information that I provided. NO ONE argued with me about my information. And Michael Froman had the advantage of being able to speak inside the event to all people in attendance. He did allow for questions and he accepted questions from a number of his supporters some of whom he knew already. When I raised my hand to ask him a question, I was of course ignored. But then at least he did not run away when I raised my hand to ask a question. That was very brave of him that he did not run away. Of course perhaps he saw the printed information that I brought and could simply read from and it may have scared him on the inside.

    Here is the link to the article that I provided.

    http://www.tppbadforus.info/index.php/trade-between-nations

    I also provided them with information from a Standord university textbook showing how real wealth is created in a society/nation. Here is the university textbook information on this web site.

    http://www.tppbadforus.info/index.php/real-wealth

    People like U.S. trade representative Michael Froman who favors the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal are now acting as lobbyists for multi-national companies so that the companies can outsource production to foreign countries where they can get cheap labor through the overvalued U.S. dollar compared to undervalued foreign currencies, for example in China and Vietnam. Also so they can avoid U.S. Taxes. Very small taxes on U.S. imports with much higher overall taxes on U.S. manufactured goods and their productive workers does NOT follow the original U.S. constitution and has resulted in very high yearly U.S. trade deficits.

    Should any person representing their country as a trade representative when writing or talking about trade only mention exports and other related words such as exported, export, exporting, etc., and never mention import and its related words? As an example an article by Michael Froman published on May 10, 2015 in the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper has twelve usages of export and related words, with seven additional export usages in a chart as part of the article. There are zero usages of import and its related words. Shouldn’t a trade representative when writing about trade, be concerned with the trade balance of their nation? Balance of trade is the largest component of a country’s balance of payments. It is the difference between a country’s imports and its exports. A country has a trade deficit if it imports more than it exports. The opposite scenario is a trade surplus. Froman never mentions our high U.S. imports, which lose real wealth creating United States production and also lose higher paying jobs for the majority of U.S. employees with less tax revenue flowing into the United States treasury.

    Trade deals passed by the United States have resulted in trade deficits of at least 350 billion dollars, $350,000,000,000 every single year since 2000, with no end in sight. The practical results of trade deficits is that we as a nation buy another nations goods and the other nation buys our assets such as real estate, gold, silver and other commodities or they lend us money through the purchase of government bonds. A Democratic Congressman, Alan Grayson from Florida’s 9th district, who has been an economist, understands this. So does Jeff Sessions a Republican Senator from Alabama, Sherrod Brown a Democratic Senator from Ohio and Bernie Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont understand the negatives of very high yearly U.S. trade deficits. Do other Congressional Members understand this?

    Financial documents even provided to the Senate Finance Committee showed Michael Froman had nearly $500,000 in an offshore fund at Ugland House on the Cayman Islands, which Barack Obama has described as “the biggest tax scam in the world”. Information on this from the Wikipedia.org web site. Now Michael Froman and Barack Obama are working together in promoting their trade scam called TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    Mark stop being a ranting twit never said they favor a damn thing Jesus man! Simmer the f down fruit cake! I said a personally think 90% of people are fully ignorant about the TPP or do not fully know how much it will screw common americans over! Never stated people favor it one way or another! Just don't think people will make it an issue! Dude I didn't write that wrong so your rant is just silly! Simmer down now!

  • Gender Idiocy   23 hours 35 min ago
    Quote Toddedyer:
    Quote al3:
    Quote Ulysses:

    The dynamic of crotch gazin' at urinals is simple and straightforward. If a guy's in there cruising, looking for male company, the guy being gazed will approve if he catches the other guy gazin' him.

    If, however, a guy's not in there for any kind of meet and greet and he's minding his own business and peeing, after which he plans to leave alone, and he's not cruising, it's sometimes going to be a fightin' offense if he catches a pecker checker ogling his tool.

    Clear?

    I've always felt annoyed when a guy enters the bathroom and uses the urinal right next to me, even though there are other urinals, further away, he could use. I have always considered this to be some type of "cruising." Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me, it's very annoying, and bad bathroom manners.

    have you ever had to use a trough to pee in where a guy can litterally be rubbed up against you while your exposed? I honestly have always felt its like o well your men you're clearly all animals anyway so enjoy the nasty unclean restrooms and be happy we even allow you running water!

    I've always hated the troughs because, among other things, there's more backsplash with them than there is with urinals or peeing in toilets in those instances where there are no urinals. Luckily, troughs seem to be gradually phased out of existence. That's a good thing. I think there are still some on military bases, where nobody expects any privacy anyway.

    A sailor and a Marine were peeing.

    "Wash your hands when you're done," said the sailor.

    "Why?" asked the Marine.

    "Because you'll have pee on 'em," the sailor responded. "They teach us cleanliness in the Navy."

    "Well," said the Marine, "in the Corps, they teach us not to pee on our hands."

  • Trump's VP Pick Prediction   23 hours 43 min ago
    Quote Toddedyer:

    I honestly think you guys are just naïve with regards to the TPP! 90% of American's I would wager are clueless either completely on the TPP or are so with regards to what it will do.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/americans-favor-tpp-but-...

    Your guys honestly think there is hope this crap is not a done deal! Without massively changing the make up of Congress more so on the Republican side the ink is dry on this whole sale rape of the American people.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/24/obama-confident-trans...

    Most Americans know more about the Kardashians than things like the tpp and until that changes this country is seriously F'D!

    That is a LYING LINK that you posted here, saying that most Americans favor TPP. Most people do not know about TPP in this nation. And all this LYING LINK will do is get people like me to explain how TPP is bad for the U.S. Then when they see the details of it, at least 90% of the people will oppose it.

    As an example, I was at a meeting with the U.S. Trade Deficit Representative, Michael Froman at Stanford university a few months ago and he came there to promote TPP. And even with these people I handed out information to them showing the negatives of TPP as they were either walking into the event or leaving the event. And after looking at the information that I provided. NO ONE argued with me about my information. And Michael Froman had the advantage of being able to speak inside the event to all people in attendance. He did allow for questions and he accepted questions from a number of his supporters some of whom he knew already. When I raised my hand to ask him a question, I was of course ignored. But then at least he did not run away when I raised my hand to ask a question. That was very brave of him that he did not run away. Of course perhaps he saw the printed information that I brought and could simply read from and it may have scared him on the inside.

    Here is the link to the article that I provided.

    http://www.tppbadforus.info/index.php/trade-between-nations

    I also provided them with information from a Standord university textbook showing how real wealth is created in a society/nation. Here is the university textbook information on this web site.

    http://www.tppbadforus.info/index.php/real-wealth

    People like U.S. trade representative Michael Froman who favors the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal are now acting as lobbyists for multi-national companies so that the companies can outsource production to foreign countries where they can get cheap labor through the overvalued U.S. dollar compared to undervalued foreign currencies, for example in China and Vietnam. Also so they can avoid U.S. Taxes. Very small taxes on U.S. imports with much higher overall taxes on U.S. manufactured goods and their productive workers does NOT follow the original U.S. constitution and has resulted in very high yearly U.S. trade deficits.

    Should any person representing their country as a trade representative when writing or talking about trade only mention exports and other related words such as exported, export, exporting, etc., and never mention import and its related words? As an example an article by Michael Froman published on May 10, 2015 in the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper has twelve usages of export and related words, with seven additional export usages in a chart as part of the article. There are zero usages of import and its related words. Shouldn’t a trade representative when writing about trade, be concerned with the trade balance of their nation? Balance of trade is the largest component of a country’s balance of payments. It is the difference between a country’s imports and its exports. A country has a trade deficit if it imports more than it exports. The opposite scenario is a trade surplus. Froman never mentions our high U.S. imports, which lose real wealth creating United States production and also lose higher paying jobs for the majority of U.S. employees with less tax revenue flowing into the United States treasury.

    Trade deals passed by the United States have resulted in trade deficits of at least 350 billion dollars, $350,000,000,000 every single year since 2000, with no end in sight. The practical results of trade deficits is that we as a nation buy another nations goods and the other nation buys our assets such as real estate, gold, silver and other commodities or they lend us money through the purchase of government bonds. A Democratic Congressman, Alan Grayson from Florida’s 9th district, who has been an economist, understands this. So does Jeff Sessions a Republican Senator from Alabama, Sherrod Brown a Democratic Senator from Ohio and Bernie Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont understand the negatives of very high yearly U.S. trade deficits. Do other Congressional Members understand this?

    Financial documents even provided to the Senate Finance Committee showed Michael Froman had nearly $500,000 in an offshore fund at Ugland House on the Cayman Islands, which Barack Obama has described as “the biggest tax scam in the world”. Information on this from the Wikipedia.org web site. Now Michael Froman and Barack Obama are working together in promoting their trade scam called TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership.

  • Gender Idiocy   23 hours 45 min ago
    Quote al3:
    Quote Ulysses:

    The dynamic of crotch gazin' at urinals is simple and straightforward. If a guy's in there cruising, looking for male company, the guy being gazed will approve if he catches the other guy gazin' him.

    If, however, a guy's not in there for any kind of meet and greet and he's minding his own business and peeing, after which he plans to leave alone, and he's not cruising, it's sometimes going to be a fightin' offense if he catches a pecker checker ogling his tool.

    Clear?

    I've always felt annoyed when a guy enters the bathroom and uses the urinal right next to me, even though there are other urinals, further away, he could use. I have always considered this to be some type of "cruising." Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me, it's very annoying, and bad bathroom manners.

    I totally agree. Even if it's innocent, it's totally obtuse. It's the same thing as if you're the sole passenger on a public bus or subway car and some asshole comes in and sits right next to you. Freaks do abound in the world.

  • Clinton Appointees Oppose $15 Minimum wWage Amendment in Democratic Platform; Sanders Surrogates Back It   23 hours 54 min ago

    A perfect example of my earlier points on a different thread of why economics must supersede concern over non-monetary social issues. Social issues cost candidates nothing to support so Hillary and her ilk pay lip service to them, but let money get involved and they'll do the bidding of their masters, as Hillary will do on this issue.

    SO WHAT DOES IT MATTER TO THOSE WORKING FOR LESS WHETHER IT'S HILLARY OR THE DONALD? NEITHER WILL DO ANYTHING TO ALLEVIATE THEIR ECONOMIC MISERY AND THE ONLY THING IN THE DONALD'S FAVOR IS THAT AT LEAST HE ISN'T A HYPOCRITE ABOUT IT LIKE SHE IS!

    Yeah, she opposes the $15 minimum wage but she's really out to help working people, isn't she!

    Puke!

  • Gun Control we have been here before   1 day 5 min ago
    Quote Legend:
    Quote mavibobo:What was the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment? Why did the framers exclude it? If guns are banned will all non military government agencies turn their weapons in also? With no civilian weapons of any significant power what is our recourse if the government turns on its citizens?

    never get pass Blackhawks at the most. See a shrink Bobo.

    What does that mean: "It would never get past Blackhawks...?"

  • Gun Control we have been here before   1 day 9 min ago
    Quote mavibobo:
    Quote Legend:
    Quote mavibobo:What was the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment? Why did the framers exclude it? If guns are banned will all non military government agencies turn their weapons in also? With no civilian weapons of any significant power what is our recourse if the government turns on its citizens?

    At first I thought that your post was kind of comical. then I realized how mentally unstable you are and you probably own a lot of guns. Just like the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Standoff you will end up in prison with about as much popularity as they are receiving, with all of the guns and friends that you can muster up. It would never get pass Blackhawks at the most. See a shrink Bobo.

    So you hsve no idea why we have a 2nd amendment. No clue why it was included snd no answers as to what our recourse is if the government decides that all gun owners are terrorists and need to br locked up eith no trial.

    Insteadbyou choose to attack and call me crazy....

    They never have an answer to that question; they always blow it off and immediately switch topics or resort, as you say, to attacking the person who poses the question. Their naivete knows no bounds because they can't believe the historical facts that such things have happened and there's nothing to prevent their happening again.

  • Gun Control we have been here before   1 day 11 min ago
    Quote Legend:
    Quote Ulysses:
    Quote Legend:

    I did not insult you and call you a Republican. I simply stated that the Republicans continue to do nothing. Also taxes is in reference to what we pay for security with this gun crazed nation.

    On the 50 caliber. Thank you for confirming how a weapon of mass destruction should be treated, as all semi Auto weapon should be treated. They are also weapons of mass destruction. They are also much worse than a "fad". They had a shooter in Germany yesterday in a theatre. Zero deaths.

    On your last paragraph how many children are killed with their parents guns every year? How many parents get shot by their kids? Guns are highly abused.

    The fact that you've chosen to comment on semi-auto in a different context than that in which I mentioned it doesn't change the truth of what I said, that they're a fad within the shooting community. If you want to argue that to you, they're not a fad in other contexts, fine, but don't change the context of my remarks when you address them.

    "They are a FAD". What planet are you on?

    I said they're a fad in the shooting community, of which you're obviously not a member or you would've understood the original context instead of choosing to fly off on a tangent spouting nonsense. I stand by what I said: military-style black rifles are a fad in the shooting community nationwide, which is why they're so popular. If you can't keep up and you remain ignorant by choice, you should refrain from commenting on subjects wherein that applies. Anybody who comments on anything out of context and out of ignorance always appears obtuse.

  • The Brexit Vote   1 day 30 min ago
  • Conservative columnist George Will says he's leaving GOP over Trump   1 day 46 min ago

    Who's george, will he say he is leaving GOP over trump?

  • Can someone tell me why the push for dump trump by the corporate media and GOP establishment   1 day 49 min ago

    Look not all rich people are evil just as not all people who call themselves anti-capitalists are good.

    In fact, there have been many people who were successful business people who were although sometimes wrong more often on the side of the angels. Where I would not defend everything done by the likes of Alexander Hamilton, Josiah Wedgewood, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Carnegie, George Westinghouse, the owners of the mills during the early part of the time of the Lowell Mill girls, and in our times Bill Gates, I would argue that all these folks and many more both strove to and to a large part where successful in both making money and doing something worthwhile with their lives.

    I have trouble imagining a modern day Hamilton, Wedgewood, or Franklin supporting Trump, if for no other reason than they all valued rational thinking which Trump seems to lack, but also because they became early abolitionists based on a basic gut level revulsion of exploitation and cruelty which Trump also seems to completely lack.

    At the same time, I think a Stalin or a Mao, who both supposedly hate capitalism might very well understand and to some degree support a Trump.

  • Sanders Walks Back Pledge To Vote For Hillary Clinton About An Hour After Saying He Would   1 day 1 hour ago

    Bernie is smart, he knows what he's doing. He's trying to move the progressive agenda forward and I stand behind him.

  • News from the Green Party…   1 day 1 hour ago
    Quote Alberto Ceras 2:

    Quote Gilbert:...to voluntarily through away their vote.

    Throw, I believe, is the word you're looking for, Gilbert.

    You sir are correct.

  • Sanders Walks Back Pledge To Vote For Hillary Clinton About An Hour After Saying He Would   1 day 1 hour ago

    When interviewed a third time on CBS he claimed that he has not heard Clinton say the things that he wants her to say so he may not vote for her at all. Come on Bernie, you are looking small, petty, and like a sore loser. What happened to your promise to work in conjunction with Clinton and Democrats to defeat trump?

  • Conservative columnist George Will says he's leaving GOP over Trump   1 day 1 hour ago
    Quote chilidog:

    Who's George Will?

    George Will is considered to be the smart conservative.

  • Here's What's the Matter with Kansas…   1 day 1 hour ago

    Kend, you're still playing dumb, I see.

    Republicans and conservatives spend much, much MORE than lefties, they just don't tax, in willful attempts to bankrupt government. They spend on their cronies like defense contractors and such and put the government's - the people's - money into their own pockets, thieves that they are.

    The Republicans are the drunken sailors. You're pretending not to know that, how cute.

  • Trump's VP Pick Prediction   1 day 1 hour ago
    Quote douglaslee:

    An insider for his Apprentice show said he always gave a pass to the fat guys on his show because they improved ratings due to people's desire to make fun of fat people. The fat guys scored poorly and failed at tasks assigned but got laughs and ratings so they were always selected for promotion.

    Trump's VP? Christie

    If Trump picked Christie, they could call the ticket "Trump & Plump 2016"...

Latest Headlines

Who rejected United States-North Korea peace talks?

There were conflicting reports on Sunday regarding a recent proposal for United States-North Korea peace talks which was allegedly made before North Korea"s recent nuclear test

U.K. Pound Falls As Markets Get Brexit Jitters

Bloomberg said on Monday the pound had sustained its biggest fall against the dollar in 11 months

Clinton: I'll defend Israel but push for 'two-state solution

Hillary Clinton believes both Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "missed the mark" with their approach to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict

Community Archive

Here's What's the Matter with Kansas…

The verdict is in, and it's time for conservatives to face the cold hard facts.

Right-wing trickle-down Reaganomics doesn't work.

It doesn't work internationally, it doesn't work nationally, and it doesn't work at the state level.