I stick to people who believe in America.

Voodoo the fetus that got away from the abortionist.


You can stand with Pedophile Bill and criminal Hillary or an a bum named Bernie who never had a real job till he was 40,


http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-the-bum-who-wants-your-money/


Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money


2016: Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Monday his parents would never have thought their son would end up in the Senate and running for president. No kidding. He was a ne’er-do-well into his late 30s.

“It’s certainly something that I don’t think they ever believed would’ve happened,” the unabashed socialist remarked during CNN’s Democratic town hall forum, as polls show him taking the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.


He explained his family couldn’t imagine his “success,” because “my brother and I and Mom and Dad grew up in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, and we never had a whole lot of money.”

It wasn’t as bad as he says. His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.


“I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

Leaving aside the reasons for the conflict in the first place (difficult to comment since we really don't have any information about what happened), isn't that what he did?

She became agitated to the point where she assaulted him. It might not have been a serious assault, but it was assault nonetheless.

We don't know what her intention was, but it looked like she intended to commit more violence (her fist was raised).

You could argue that he stopped that from happening.

Personally, I would have walked away at that point, but every situation is different, and we don't know what lead either of them to this point.

The guy could a complete sleazebag. Or he could be a past victim of assault who decided "never again". We just don't know.

I 100% agree with you that the best fight is the one you don't have to have. De-escalation is always preferable, but it's not always possible.

If you do get into a physical confrontation, then your goal should be to end it as quickly as possible.

@enoch I agree he is an asshole for trying to get in front of her in the line (which started all this) and for trying (and succeeding) to agitate her. I may have missed it, I didnt hear any "rape culture". Perhaps I dont understand what is meant with that?

To me it seemed the lady was much more (Physically) aggressive than the gentleman. He was being a douche, she was being aggressive which just motivated him to agitate her more.

Tolerating physical action based on verbal abuse opens up a can of worms. All of a sudden we put the judging into the hands of random people. Everything someone says can then be interpreted as abuse and lead to physical reaction. What about a look? Is looking weirdly at someone considered abuse and therefor liable to physical deterrent? Is tasering someone considered ok next to peper spraying them? What about shooting? Where does it end?

That is a slippery slope. I am guessing here, but legally I think verbal abuse is a minor offence, physical action is a major offence.

Was it the employee of the shop or the agitating gentlemen that got fired?

Firing the employee of the shop for not stopping the gentlemen seems extremely harsh. You are depriving someone of their livelihood for not judging well enough if someone else goes over an arbitrary line.

If it was the gentlemen that got fired, well, still harsh. He was being an asshole for sure, but firing someone for that? Does that mean that everyone who is an asshole in traffic should get fired? I think there would not be many employees left.

Whenever I see something as horrendous as slavery downplayed (by likening it to today's working class) I'm likely to find myself agitated, and I think that contributed to my tone when replying earlier, and I'm somewhat ashamed for overreacting.

I could be totally wrong with my interpretation of the video, however. I guess the best thing to do is present my interpretation before any argument ensues.

It seems to present the similarities between the relationship a plantation slave had with their masters and the negative parts of the relationship a modern citizen has with their government and employer and the influential elite.

By creating a character as odious as the slave owner, they are poisoning the discussion. Their grievances are with three separate groups of people, but they push them all into one. Then they tar him by making him the slave owner, making it almost impossible to have a real discussion about him. Furthermore, they dismiss any of the benefits they enjoy from the three groups they are demonizing.

It doesn't seem very agitated. Just kinda wanders around... la-dee-dah...

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Let me quote the Vice President of the Confederate States, March 21st, 1861:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

(...)

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

That's white supremacy. That's white supremacy and then some.

When I saw the obvious 100% difference in the way the officer reacted to one slowly shuffling, hands on head advancing person vs the other officer totally under reacting to an angry, shouting, agitated, hands all over, violent advancing person that then gets a gun and still is not fired at, yes, the first thing that came to mind when I asked 'why did they act so oppositely?' was 'one offender was white, so not a threat even while actually attacking the officer, the other brown, so a terrifying threat when creeping towards the officer.' Do you have another interpretation you would wish to share?

You must be trolling with that. One officer shot an unarmed man who crept towards him, hands up. One officer didn't shoot someone who rushed him, punched him (I think, sounded like it), screamed about killing him, went back to his car and got a gun, aimed, waited, aimed more, waited, and shot...only then was he threatening enough. WTF?!? Do you not see the entirety of reasonable action between those two extremes?

Not going to bother anymore, you're clearly just looking to argue.

yeah,my anarchy video wont get many votes.
i dont expect it to.
most of the dissenters,dissidents and agitators have left the sift.
so the normals will watch it and two things will happen.
1.it will make them angry,but they wont comment because that would be,you know,risking a confrontation or *gasp* conflict.
2.they will take it personally and still not comment for the very same reasons as above.

dont want to be viewed as a 'non-conformist" or be seen as "different".
dont make waves.
sit down.
shut up.
behave.

which is exactly the mentality the dude in my video is railing against.
probably why i found it so entertaining.
i do admire that mans passion.

@newtboy
told ya he was pissed.
i admire this mans passion.
in fact,i applaud it.

while i do not agree with his attack therapy tactics and do not subscribe to his over-all conclusions.i absolutely ADORE how he calls out the cognitive dissonance of the american voter.

because he is right.

how can you subscribe to a law that makes prostitution illegal,yet porn legal?
or the guy who deals crack or meth as being a criminal? yet opiates are,by far,the leading cause of death in regards to controlled substances.so who is the bigger criminal?

and what,exactly,IS a criminal?is it because the state says so?if you subscribe to that,then i am a criminal.

i found his condemnation of the christian church to be the most delicious.
jesus christ was an insurrectionist,a radical,a dissident and a dissenter.a zealot in the face of the powered elite.

so how can you fight a war of aggression in jesus christs name?
how can you state that god blesses america with over 2.4 million people incarcerated?or to categorize and demonize those who may be different i.e:gay,lesbian or atheist and yet still call yourself a christian?

i giggled with delight when he pointed out that the very same people who are championing those insurrectionists,dissidents and agitators of the past as somehow being representative of their morals and ethics,are the very same people they are demonizing today for breaking the rules.

this man is so pissed off and i love it.
he says things that will make conformists extremely uncomfortable,and we NEED to be a bit uncomfortable.if only to shake off the apathy and lethargy.

as for the taxes argument..meh..i dont subscribe to the "privatize everything" ,because some things should not be profit driven,but i also do not subscribe to the 'taxes pay for essential services",unless wars of aggression,corporate welfare and big-agribusiness subsidies are considered "essential".

our democracy is broken,our government dysfunctional and serves only to keep the balance of the status quo on top..and fuck the regular dude.

can you REALLY say your government represents you?
ok,go ahead and vote.here are your choices:chocolate or vanilla but both are made by hagen daaz.

you really should watch to the end..he just gets madder and madder.
truths can often be uncomfortable,but that never changes the fact that they are truths.

and goddamn i love your optimism! just cant share it on this issue,though if you could bottle it up i am betting you would make a fortune.

ill have three bottles of newt please...to go.

anytime my man.
your voice and input has been sorely missed.
sometimes this site does appear to be one giant circlejerk and the hornets nest should be poked from time to time.

all the great agitators left (you being one of them) and y'all left me to carry the water.
and lets be honest...i dont have the skills to get peeps to lose their shit quite as deftly as you do.
choggie was great but he was too passionate and would devolve into a giant rage machine.
i miss that fucker as well,our own little mysanthrope.

complacency and apathy can be just as destructive as rage and anger.

there are some intelligent and thoughtful people here on the sift but with nobody challenging their conceptions and worldviews they end up spending the majority of their time smelling their own farts and calling them good.

so i hope your visit is not a short one.
these people NEED you.
they just dont know it yet.

i mean look.
you post a single video.
4 downvotes
3 upvotes
38 comments!!!!!

you are still the master my friend.

I disagree completely. He was pretty patient with the cop as well, and calmly informed him he may be arrested if he keeps doing what he's been told to do. He did not get agitated or insulting, how is that 'trying to get a rise from the cop'? He was trying to help the cop stay out of jail, and clearly explained both the law and the reasoning behind it for the cop's benefit.

I have yet another story to add about this.

One of my better female pals got in contact with me about 2 months ago by standing outside of where I worked waiting for me to come out.

I walked out of the office and was surprised to see her but she was agitated. She had a CD in her hand that she could not figure out how to load on her computer and said that two men had assaulted her in a Safeway; but had the evidence on the CD's.

I let her know that I would absolutely try and figure this out and that the discs were safe with me, I wasn't going to misplace them, etc etc.

She had gone to the security of Safeway (a third party company inside Safeway) and asked for the tapes of the times but they gave her some sort of strange format - you had to install a really shitty program and then the evidence was just a small window on the screen.

I figured out how to export the videos high resolution & full screen.

Basically, what happened was she was at a Coinstar and totally looking very pretty but these dudes came up behind her and leveraged their stuff towards her and grabbed her ass, twice. Once coming in and leaving.

When they left and did the same thing, this strong woman who I know, flipped out. She ran out after them but a cop was already waiting for one of them.

They had both been stealing shit all day long and garnered the attention of the authorities and the cops were on to them. Probably, very high on drugs.

Later it was found out that one of the dudes raped a child and also ran over a person as a hit and run.

She helped prosecute them in court and had no idea that the black hole went as deep as it did when she pressed charges for basic harassment.

Marching in lock-step to your demise, child. Your comments on this matter read like a dutiful slave to your own oblivion.

One of the things no one has even cared to mention about this event is that the federal government, enforcing a civil affair (non-payment of grazing fees) sent armed swat teams to enforce the matter. The citizens of the United States who chose to show up in support of Bundy (a dumb-ass for the shit he's said of late, that the media has completely used to distract the putties with racism being an opportunistic side-issue in this entire debacle), who did so with guns as well-were within their rights to do so, breaking no laws. For this, they are called all manner of names and labeled as agitants, crazies,etc., by people without a clue as to how they are being ass-fucked.

The media, an arm of the state's machine, focuses upon this and continually pumps their brand of newsspeak, loaded language (like newtboy here repeats and foments to his own audience of parrots), and in doing so guides the story in a direction that further ignores facts while blatantly promoting the further erosion of individual rights under the constitution in favor of bigger, stronger, more restrictive government.

We are going to see more and more of this in the coming decade, as well as more people who favor the cozy protection of government control over individual responsibilities and accountability.