Fake hate crime

[Lightbringer]

No idea. I can tell him that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (nonexistant anymore) are all Socialist programs, and I can guarantee you that most people want them. You know, except for top Republicans who want to cut VA programs and Social Security because they really care about our veterans and seniors :lol

It's still too complicated for him. We're left in a stump.

 

[Lightbringer]

How will it be cheaper? please elaborate. Your video didn't.



How can I debate you if you bring no facts? You bring a video(which just says canada is better but nothing of substance as to why)


Because my sources are too conservative(your sources are too liberal(see how easy that was, refute the point not the sources)

You must be registered for see links

lol the Canadian doctor in the video just said that their Prime Minister is a Conservative.

To answer your other question. The reason why it's cheaper is because we won't be paying monthly premiums anymore for our healthcare. Monthly premiums are just another word for subscription.

Fortune magazine is one of the magazines that constantly prints propaganda. It's owned by corporations; obviously they're going to try to diminish Bernie's policy of taxing the rich.

The fact of the matter is, many presidents in the past including: FDR, Reagan, Ford, Eisenhower, and others have had a marginalized tax on the rich which went up as high as 90%.

That's a historical fact.

I've told you all of this before and you've chosen to ignore it and probably will do so again. Hell, you're asking the same question I've answered a month ago.

Because I know this is a fruitless endeavor, I'm going to end my debate with you in this comment. Educate yourself.

 

[slimreaper]

lol the Canadian doctor in the video just said that their Prime Minister is a Conservative.

To answer your other question. The reason why it's cheaper is because we won't be paying monthly premiums anymore for our healthcare. Monthly premiums are just another word for subscription.

Fortune magazine is one of the magazines that constantly prints propaganda. It's owned by corporations; obviously they're going to try to diminish Bernie's policy of taxing the rich.

The fact of the matter is, many presidents in the past including: FDR, Reagan, Ford, Eisenhower, and others have had a marginalized tax on the rich which went up as high as 90%.

That's a historical fact.

I've told you all of this before and you've chose to ignore it and probably will do so again. Hell, you're asking the same question I've answered a month ago.

Because I know this is a fruitless endeavor, I'm going to end my debate with you in this comment. Educate yourself.

provide some facts on you claim about fortune moron

You must be registered for see links

so now we have no premium, great. My employer has to pay another 6.2% every month though. Who do you think he is going to take that out on? NOt to mention everyone is now making 15$ an hour in this hypothetical dream world.

reagan closed loopholes( I support though it's not effective) the only one who really taxed the rich was eisenhower(his own party disagreed with him). Just because it's been done before doesn't mean ill even remotely support it.

What give you a right to 90% of someone elses money? What the point of being successful if the government gets 90%. Socialism kills incentive.

How about you educate yourself on FDR

You must be registered for see links

 

[Lightbringer]

provide some facts on you claim about fortune moron


so now we have no premium, great. My employer has to pay another 6.2% every month though. Who do you think he is going to take that out on? NOt to mention everyone is now making 15$ an hour in this hypothetical dream world.

reagan closed loopholes( I support though it's not effective) the only one who really taxed the rich was eisenhower(his own party disagreed with him). Just because it's been done before doesn't mean ill even remotely support it.

What give you a right to 90% of someone elses money? What the point of being successful if the government gets 90%. Socialism kills incentive.

How about you educate yourself on FDR

You must be registered for see links

Educate yourself.

 

[slimreaper]

Educate yourself.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

go ahead educate yourself sheep

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

Y'know someone is enlightened when they call you a sheep.

 

[slimreaper]

Y'know someone is enlightened when they call you a sheep.

But when he calls every argument against bernie propaganda he isn't a sheep?

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

But when he calls every argument against bernie propaganda he isn't a sheep?

Sheep
"Someone who mindessly follows and emulates anything and everything in the name of fame/recognition. A waste of flesh and brain cells."

Yet here you are having a discussion about it and you have been told about it numerous times by numerous people.

I'm not gonna read everything or pretend I'm interested in politics. Just thought it was kinda funny. You remind me of illuminate & Unknownvillain a bit from both your latest threads

 

[Bacillus]

You should probably quote the entire piece instead of cutting out the middle, because that allows you to not make the mistakes of taking my posts out of context. Bernie's message resides with multiple demographics, and those demographics sound with him. Again, this is supposed to be in a separate thread. We can talk politicians if you want, but in this thread we are supposed to talk about whether or not there are "fake hate crimes" :lol

i'll be brutally honest for you, here

it's easy to address one thing so as not to derail my main point: the targeted demographic for sanders' campaign. the only reason i edited the rest out is i didn't want to attack any of the other points brought to light and fear we'd wind up in a cluster**** of an argument out of sheer laziness

i mean, we could, but i didn't wanna do that

that and i'm not interested in the topic at hand or slimreaper (unless the argument breaks down and he's getting eaten alive, it's my duty to protect, regardless of his political position), just the discussion that takes place

You must be registered for see images

 

[Lightbringer]

But when he calls every argument against bernie propaganda he isn't a sheep?

That's because you source the first thing you see about Bernie Sanders and it's almost always from a website that has been notorious for spreading false information or deeply biased.

Hell, you even sourced FOX news. FOX!!!

And you wonder why I grill you using non-credible sources.

 

[slimreaper]

That's because you source the first thing you see about Bernie Sanders and it's almost always from a website that has been notorious for spreading false information or deeply biased.

so provide some substance to this claim about fortune.

You must be registered for see links

heres one from forbes too. How many sources are just propaganda?

 

[Lightbringer]

so provide some substance to this claim about fortune.

You must be registered for see links

heres one from forbes too. How many sources are just propaganda?

You sourced Fox news before. FOX!!! And you wonder why I constantly grill you on using non-credible sources?

Dude, Forbes/Fortune/Time/Washingtonpost/etc.

They're not independent outlets. They are corporately owned. That means they have an agenda. The people who fear Bernie Sanders the most are the corporations.

The media does not cover Bernie Sanders and when they do, they try to portray him as a communist. The big magazines are always trying to slander him. That's not a coincidence, that's a smear campaign.

They have posted things that are true before but that doesn't mean they haven't mislead people using false information for a certain gain on their part. All of those outlets have done so.

 

[slimreaper]

You sourced Fox news before. FOX!!! And you wonder why I constantly grill you on using non-credible sources?

Dude, Forbes/Fortune/Time/Washingtonpost/etc.

They're not independent outlets. They are corporately owned. That means they have an agenda. The people who fear Bernie Sanders the most are the corporations.

The media does not cover Bernie Sanders and when they do, they try to portray him as a communist. The big magazines are always trying to slander him. That's not a coincidence, that's a smear campaign.

They have posted things that are true before but that doesn't mean they haven't mislead people using false information for a certain gain on their part. All of those outlets have done so.

Ill break it down for you. You can't argue with their logic, so instead you attack their names.


I admit that a single payer health system would be better than our current one, but at the cost of my source of money I say no ****ing way.


You liberals never argue at what cost

 

[Lightbringer]

Ill break it down for you. You can't argue with their logic, so instead you attack their names.


I admit that a single payer health system would be better than out current one, but at the cost of my source of money I say no ****ing way.


You liberals never argue at what cost

You don't even understand the cost. You don't even read your own sources. You just look at the title and read the first few sentences.

When a source is not credible, there is no point in debating their logic. You can't seem to fathom that.

The premiums that we pay for privatized healthcare cost us thousands. It's a subscription. Most of that money goes to the CEO.

If it is run federally, then the premiums are replaced by a slight increase in tax to cover medical costs. That slight increase in tax is still thousands of dollars cheaper than the premiums.

The government does not make a profit out of the program, they just run it to ensure that it works. The private corporations seek out profit, which is why it's expensive.

 

[slimreaper]

You don't even understand the cost. You don't even read your own sources. You just look at the title and read the first few sentences.

When a source is not credible, there is no point in debating their logic. You can't seem to fathom that.

The premiums that we pay for privatized healthcare cost us thousands. It's a subscription. Most of that money goes to the CEO.

If it is run federally, then the premiums are replaced by a slight increase in tax to cover medical costs. That slight increase in tax is still thousands of dollars cheaper than the premiums.

The government does not make a profit out of the program, they just run it to ensure that it works. The private corporations seek out profit, which is why it's expensive.

6.2% payroll tax(employer is going to levee on employees), 2.2% income tax on everyone, another income tax for paid "LEAVE" of women, not to mention his proposed increase in the minimum wage.


NO you don't understand the cost of his proposals


IF you would read

"An initial reaction to this list might be: wow, wouldn’t that be really expensive? Darn right it would be. Kenworthy estimates the aggregate price for these changes to be around 10% of U.S. GDP — about $1.5 trillion a year. He acknowledges that there is no way we could raise the revenue to support such an expansion of federal government spending by taxing the rich; there’s just not enough money there. Instead, we would have to do what many European countries do, and institute a national consumption tax in the form of a VAT (value added tax)."

 

[Lightbringer]

6.2% payroll tax(employer is going to levee on employees), 2.2% income tax on everyone, another income tax for paid "LEAVE" of women, not to mention his proposed increase in the minimum wage.


NO you don't understand the cost of his proposals


IF you would read

"An initial reaction to this list might be: wow, wouldn’t that be really expensive? Darn right it would be. Kenworthy estimates the aggregate price for these changes to be around 10% of U.S. GDP — about $1.5 trillion a year. He acknowledges that there is no way we could raise the revenue to support such an expansion of federal government spending by taxing the rich; there’s just not enough money there. Instead, we would have to do what many European countries do, and institute a national consumption tax in the form of a VAT (value added tax)."

You're hopeless.

The fact that you're ignorant about the everything is just appalling. I'm dead serious. I am just shocked that someone can be so deluded.

Virtually everyone told you that you're wrong, but you still delude yourself to being right.

I don't how many times I can repeat myself. You don't understand the topic. You don't understand the numbers. You just make up your own scenario and fool yourself into believing it.

I can't argue with you because you use fiction. I'd have to explain the minute specifics of everything you say and even when I try to do, you still don't accept that you're wrong or you just won't let me explain it.

I'm not going to waste my time babying you for something that you should have learned in school. You can't even comprehend common knowledge let alone something as complex as economics.

Until you wake up from your own delusions, you'll never be able to understand why everyone disagrees with you.

 

[slimreaper]

You're hopeless.

The fact that you're ignorant about the everything is just appalling. I'm dead serious. I am just shocked that someone can be so deluded.

Virtually everyone told you that you're wrong, but you still delude yourself to being right.

I don't how many times I can repeat myself. You don't understand the topic. You don't understand the numbers. You just make up your own scenario and fool yourself into believing it.

I can't argue with you because you use fiction. I'd have to explain the minute specifics of everything you say and even when I try to do, you still don't accept that you're wrong or you just won't let me explain it.

I'm not going to waste my time babying you for something that you should have learned in school. You can't even comprehend common knowledge let alone something as complex as economics.

Until you wake up from your own delusions, you'll never be able to understand why everyone disagrees with you.

SO now its the word of users of this base vs economists(even liberal economists think bernie is exaggerating) all right.


What you can't see is even if he is saving me money, he is costing my employer vast amounts.


How many times have you personally lost a job due to a layoff in your life?

 

[Lightbringer]

SO now its the word of users of this base vs economists(even liberal economists think bernie is exaggerating) all right.


What you can't see is even if he is saving me money, he is costing my employer vast amounts.


How many times have you personally lost a job due to a layoff in your life?

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're employer would be saving on health insurance too.

Again, like I said, your logic is just fiction. You have no idea of what you're talking about.

Crack open a book for once.

Goodbye.

 

[slimreaper]

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're employer would be saving on health insurance too.

Again, like I said, your logic is just fiction. You have no idea of what you're talking about.

Crack open a book for once.

Goodbye.

and losing more in other areas.


Lets say I make 13 dollars an hour and my employer employs 200 people. lets say everyone is limited to 40 hours a week(not true but whatever)

an increase of 2 dollars an hour per employee times 200 employees is 400$ an hour more. times 40 hours thats 16,000 dollars a week. thats 832,000 dollars a year more he's now going to pay. And you want me to believe hes gonna save money?

You aren't figuring in bernie's other costs