Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
darkblue

Bernie Sanders!

Recommended Posts

We all know that cops would never, ever arrest someone without a definite breakage of the law, right james?

Saying something that gets a cop to slam you for a few hours - only to let you go when it's decided you were just exercising free speech - never happens.

No such thing as "false arrest", right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that cops would never, ever arrest someone without a definite breakage of the law, right james?

 

Saying something that gets a cop to slam you for a few hours - only to let you go when it's decided you were just exercising free speech - never happens.

 

No such thing as "false arrest", right?

 

I have no idea where this is coming from related to my post about violation of first amendment rights.  Clearly some cops violate first amendment rights (e.g.  destroying a mobile phone someone is using to record an incidence).    Of course false arrest also occur. 

 

It was P-of-Tap that is claiming free speech rights are not under attack not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2016 at 9:33 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

I have no idea where this is coming from

Cripes, did you forget what you posted already?

It's coming from "I.e.  if those chips result in legal punishment then that speech wasn't legal by definition and therefore NOT protected speech".

Isn't getting arrested a "legal punishment"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was P-of-Tap that is claiming free speech rights are not under attack not me.

 

 

That was actually me, originally, James. I was asking why people started posting Free Speech memes all of a sudden, as if there were some new development in the news I had missed where free speech was under attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cripes, did you forget what you posted already?

 

It's coming from "I.e.  if those chips result in legal punishment then that speech wasn't legal by definition and therefore NOT protected speech".

 

Isn't getting arrested a "legal punishment"?

 

Ok, I see where the misunderstanding occurred.

 

What I stated was a protest against legal punishment for what should be protected speech (but sadly is NOT in some cases).

 

Again,  my post was in response to P-of-Tab comment of "My belief is simply and legally, I have the right to say anything I feel like saying and let the chips fall where they may".

 

To me that statement by Tap is false because those 'chips' include legalize punishment for what should be protected speech. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was actually me, originally, James. I was asking why people started posting Free Speech memes all of a sudden, as if there were some new development in the news I had missed where free speech was under attack.

 

Well you should live in CA.   My local T.V. station host a very interesting political discussion each evening related to local (So Cal) politics. 

 

Tonight's topic:   First amendment rights and how so called hate crimes may be assaulting free speech.    They site the UC system anti-Israel policy as one example.

 

Funny but I posted what I posted BEFORE knowing what the topic of the show was (I just happened to see a commercial for it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I misunderstand your statement but to me there is a conflict between saying 'legally' and 'let the chips fall where they may'.

I.e. if those chips result in legal punishment then that speech wasn't legal by definition and therefore NOT protected speech.

 

e.g. Here in CA there is a major debate about what can and cannot be said by teachers and students at state run universities. The main bone of contention is related to Israel. Jewish support groups claim that saying something like the building of settlements in occupied terrorized is illegal (as defined by the U.N.) is anti-Semitic and a hate crime and one can be disciplined for doing so (fired, suspended, losing a scholarship, etc...). Those are some very heavy chips that fall on anyone that happens to disagree with Israeli government policy.

 

Now this policy has NOT been implemented YET. It keeps getting passed but then delayed. To me such a policy should be illegal and we may need to have the Supreme Court say so.

 

There is always some movement or group that tries to deny our first amendment rights and it isn't only right wringers that are trying to suppress something sexual like porn.

James-- I gave a couple of general examples of what I was talking about. Primarily had to do with threatening people's lives or threatening treason.

So you have to have some parameters or boundaries with that kind of thing.

 

What you're talking about is a specific instance. It has more to do with a political opinion then anything to do with screaming fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire or threatening the life of someone.

 

We all know that there are bad laws now. And that there have been bad laws in the past - - that allowed for Jim Crow, slavery, ect.

 

James - - what you're talking about is a specific political opinion about a foreign country.

 

In France they have hate laws against anti-semitism because of their disastrous record during the Nazi occupation of France in World War II.

 

There are people on the extreme right who are Holocaust deniers. It's against the law in France to be a Holocaust denier.

 

It sounds like some of the people in your state have gotten wind of these laws and they're misinterpreting the concept.

 

The domestic policies of a foreign country shouldn't be more important to people then the civil rights of Americans.

 

It makes me think of the issue of apartheid. It wasn't so long ago that college students were demonstrating against apartheid in South Africa. Many people in the diamond industry and other corporations were benefiting from it. And they were giving money to a number of universities and nonprofits.

 

The universities that got money from these corporations were not considered to be racist because they were benefiting from apartheid. At that time nobody said that you were a racist if you were not actively against apartheid. People would just say it's none of our business, let them work their own problems out. Or I agree that apartheid is terrible, but we really need to take that money from Coca Cola. Yes, taking money from the who people have benefited from apartheid was not considered to be racist. That was not considered a hate crime. If you are passive about apartheid that was not a hate crime either.

 

 

In France there are people who are anti-zionist. That is not against the anti-semitic laws.

 

Anti-zionist are people that have some kind of a issue about the existence of the Jewish state of Israel or how it came about or about the whole concept of a Jewish state.

 

In my opinion - - Americans have a right to whatever opinion they want to have on the domestic policy of another country, unless the United States is at war with that country.

 

Sounds to me like the case in your state is a freedom of speech issue that may have to go to the Supreme Court. As difficult as it sounds it's not as difficult as the issues that Martin Luther King had to deal with. Or the issues that the feminist movement had to deal with under Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem.

 

Seems to me that the people in your area are very well-educated and they will certainly be able to organize a movement to handle the situation.

 

I agree with you it's a serious situation - - as you well know all laws are not good ones.

 

Anything that's been accomplished in this country has been accomplished by people who are not afraid to stand up for their freedom of speech and for their civil rights or to let the chips fall where they may.

 

Unfortunately it is the case that many laws are written for the benefit of those who write them. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you should live in CA.   My local T.V. station host a very interesting political discussion each evening related to local (So Cal) politics. 

 

Tonight's topic:   First amendment rights and how so called hate crimes may be assaulting free speech.    They site the UC system anti-Israel policy as one example.

 

Funny but I posted what I posted BEFORE knowing what the topic of the show was (I just happened to see a commercial for it).

 

The most egregious acts of political correctness and suppression of free speech are happening on college campuses. So-called "micro-aggressions" and "cultural appropriation" are ridiculous concepts that give the left a bad name. And I don't know when Israel became the 51st state, but that whole issue has become so out of control. The fact that someone cannot criticize the acts of a nation-state without then being accused of antisemitism is absurd. And when it seems members of our Congress put the wants and needs of a foreign power before those of their own nation and not be called out for it is insane. I have never seen members of Congress openly supporting the leader of another country over their own President like I did when Netanyahu came to Washington. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

& here's an Australian's POV ---

 

http://observer.com/2016/04/heres-the-thing-so-many-americans-cant-grasp-about-bernie-sanders/

 

Here’s the Thing So Many Americans Can’t Grasp About Bernie Sanders....

 

"Around the rest of the world, Mr. Sanders represents a point on the political spectrum that is mildly left of centre. His “wacky” ideas of free (and we’ll get to that term a bit later) education, free healthcare, regulating banks and corporations and so on are all actually staple ideas of many of the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the happiest countries in the world index for 2016....

 

,.. Hillary Clinton would, in most countries be considered right of centre, not left.

 

  1. We won’t lose our job and get bankrupted by the hospital bill if we get sick
  2. We can attend university for a reasonable fee, not leaving us saddled with horrific debt
  3. We can work a minimum wage job and actually survive on the income
  4. We have a real shot at moving up in society if we work hard

America likes to brand itself as “the land of opportunity,” but from elsewhere in the world, the cost of that opportunity is shockingly high. It looks more and more like the land of oligarchy,..

 

..your corporations, banks and politicians have no qualms about being socialist when it suits them. They’ll happily put their hands out for subsidies that they don’t need to make billions more that won’t be taxed—"

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from article about Hillary...


 


"3. We can work a minimum wage job and actually survive on the income."


 


 


Got an idea, why not Hillary receive only minimum wage and see how she fairs!


 


Oh no heaven forbid, she'll be playing violins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote from article about Hillary...

 

"3. We can work a minimum wage job and actually survive on the income."

 

 

Got an idea, why not Hillary receive only minimum wage and see how she fairs!

 

Oh no heaven forbid, she'll be playing violins.

 

 

Appears you agree with Sanders and HRC that the minimum wage should be a so called living wage.

 

Clearly that is what HRC meant by statement #3. 

 

What the statement doesn't clarify is who 'we' are.    e.g. should a living wage be high enough that ONE person earns enough to take care of ONE adult and ONE child?    Two children?   etc....    OR is this wage only need to be high enough to support ONE person living with 2 - 3 other wage earning adults in a 2 bedroom place????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appears you agree with Sanders and HRC that the minimum wage should be a so called living wage.

 

Clearly that is what HRC meant by statement #3. 

 

What the statement doesn't clarify is who 'we' are.    e.g. should a living wage be high enough that ONE person earns enough to take care of ONE adult and ONE child?    Two children?   etc....    OR is this wage only need to be high enough to support ONE person living with 2 - 3 other wage earning adults in a 2 bedroom place????

 

Took the statement #3  - a person rich, stating how the average Joe can fair on minimum wage.  Line number 3 came after,  ".. Hillary Clinton would, in most countries be considered right of centre, not left."

 

The minimum wage SUPPOSE to be a living wage but today is not. :(

 

A quote from this article...

"The minimum wage in the United States is no longer a living wage."

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/022615/can-family-survive-us-minimum-wage.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took the statement #3  - a person rich, stating how the average Joe can fair on minimum wage.  Line number 3 came after,  ".. Hillary Clinton would, in most countries be considered right of centre, not left."

 

The minimum wage SUPPOSE to be a living wage but today is not. :(

 

A quote from this article...

"The minimum wage in the United States is no longer a living wage."

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/022615/can-family-survive-us-minimum-wage.asp

 

The problem with using the minimum wage to ensure a living wage is that it does NOT control for the cost of things like RENT.

 

e.g. say the minimum wage is raised by 10%.   Joe therefore makes more per month.   BUT unless there is rent control where Joe lives the landlords in the area are all aware the 'joes' in the area are making more money and I assume most landlords would raise the rent they charge.   Therefore Joe really didn't make much of a gain (e.g. extra income to spend on things other then rent),  but instead these landlords get the majority of the benefit of the living wage law.

 

When a type of control is placed on the market place (e.g. a living wage),  but OTHER controls are NOT placed (e.g. a law the requires 20% of apartments in an area to have rents that don't exceed 35% of the by law living wage),    those capitalist NOT subject to controls will adjust what they charge.

 

Of course the government can pass more and more controls that cap what can be charged but when this is done we need to be honest and admit we are moving farther and farther away from a market base system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took the statement #3 - a person rich, stating how the average Joe can fair on minimum wage. Line number 3 came after, ".. Hillary Clinton would, in most countries be considered right of centre, not left."

 

The minimum wage SUPPOSE to be a living wage but today is not. :(

 

A quote from this article...

"The minimum wage in the United States is no longer a living wage."

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/022615/can-family-survive-us-minimum-wage.asp

The concept of a national minimum wage is ridiculous. I think it takes a lot more money to live in New York City than it takes to live in Podunk Alabama.

 

And they're probably all kinds of the gradations in between. I used to judge the market by what a Big Mac would cost--these days of course, I don't eat Big Macs anymore.

 

A Big Mac meal might cost $5 in one small town, whereas it might cost $10 or more in a big city.

 

We need a sliding scale of a minimum wage, according to the local Marketplace.

 

In this instance, I don't think one size will fit all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of a national minimum wage is ridiculous. I think it takes a lot more money to live in New York City than it takes to live in Podunk Alabama.

 

And they're probably all kinds of the gradations in between. I used to judge the market by what a Big Mac would cost--these days of course, I don't eat Big Macs anymore.

 

A Big Mac meal might cost $5 in one small town, whereas it might cost $10 or more in a big city.

 

We need a sliding scale of a minimum wage, according to the local Marketplace.

 

In this instance, I don't think one size will fit all.

 

Clearly a national minimum wage makes zero sense for the reasons you state.    I love that Big Mac index.   The Economist uses this on an annual basis to compare prices of the burger in every country it is served (with the one sold in India being chicken instead of beef).     

 

CA just passed a minimum wage that after it goes to $15 in 2022 will be tied to the inflation index after that.    I believe this is problematic since when an increase in wages is tied too closely to an inflation index this can help drive the inflation index (verses following it).      So the CA law does allow the governor to prevent increases when economic conditions warrant it (e.g. unemployment in CA is over 6%). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking at a United Steelworkers rally outside the Indiana statehouse, Sen. Sanders said:

 

"I’m here today to tell all of you that I intend to do everything that I can to prevent United Technologies from shutting down their plants in Indianapolis and Huntington and throwing 2,100 workers out on the street and moving to Monterey, Mexico, where they will pay workers $3 an hour.

This is not acceptable. This is the kind of corporate behavior that is destroying the middle class of this country – and it has got to end...

 

If United Technologies wants to receive another defense contract from the taxpayers of this country, it must not move these plants to Mexico.

If United Technologies refuses to keep these jobs in Indiana, it should pay back all of the corporate welfare it has received from the taxpayers of this country.

Let’s be clear, however. What United Technologies is doing here in Indiana is what corporate America has done throughout this country over the last 35 years."

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/29/bernie-sanders-stands-workers-vows-fight-indiana-carrier-plant-closing.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with using the minimum wage to ensure a living wage is that it does NOT control for the cost of things like RENT.

 

e.g. say the minimum wage is raised by 10%. Joe therefore makes more per month. BUT unless there is rent control where Joe lives the landlords in the area are all aware the 'joes' in the area are making more money and I assume most landlords would raise the rent they charge. Therefore Joe really didn't make much of a gain (e.g. extra income to spend on things other then rent), but instead these landlords get the majority of the benefit of the living wage law.

That's my situation exactly. I get a raise almost every year, and my rent increases each year. It's always a bizarre race to see whether or not I'm able to keep ahead of the curve (and I make more than the minimum wage).

 

And landlords charge more because property taxes go up, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my situation exactly. I get a raise almost every year, and my rent increases each year. It's always a bizarre race to see whether or not I'm able to keep ahead of the curve (and I make more than the minimum wage).

 

And landlords charge more because property taxes go up, etc. etc.

I don't know if this is a City, County or state thing - - but years ago when I lived in Chicago they had something called rent control. And I don't know if they have that in a lot of other places. It seems like I heard about that in New York as well.

 

Do you know if they still do that any place? They certainly don't do it where I live.LOL

 

I keep on hearing that we don't have any inflation in the United States but everytime I go to the grocery store the prices are raised a nickel a dime quarter $0.30 or more and I'm not imagining this. People who say that obviously don't buy their own groceries. Or they have so much money they just don't care.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my situation exactly. I get a raise almost every year, and my rent increases each year. It's always a bizarre race to see whether or not I'm able to keep ahead of the curve (and I make more than the minimum wage).

 

And landlords charge more because property taxes go up, etc. etc.

 

In addition your landlord doesn't even know if you received a raise or not and when you will get one.   

 

But with these built-in minimum wage laws like the one CA just passed landlords would know exactly when many of their renters received a wage increase.  e.g. CA will increase the min-wage each January by $1 until 2020 and by the inflation index after that.     Each increase doesn't just increase the wage of those earning a minimum wage but in theory all lower tiered wages.    e.g. the min-wage is $12 an hour.   At company X,  some make this $12,  some make $13, some make $15.   Well when that minimum wage is raised to $13 those already making $13 are going to expect to get a raise also,  as well as those making $15.

 

So why wouldn't landlords each February raise the rents knowing that as of last January many of their renters now have more income.

 

As for property taxes;  in CA annual increases are capped at 3% so at least for the landlord there is a cap that benefits them,  but of course this doesn't benefit renters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is a City, County or state thing - - but years ago when I lived in Chicago they had something called rent control. And I don't know if they have that in a lot of other places. It seems like I heard about that in New York as well.

Do you know if they still do that any place? They certainly don't do it where I live.LOL

I keep on hearing that we don't have any inflation in the United States but everytime I go to the grocery store the prices are raised a nickel a dime quarter $0.30 or more and I'm not imagining this. People who say that obviously don't buy their own groceries. Or they have so much money they just don't care.

I live in Seattle and, as far as I'm aware, we don't have rent control.

 

And addressing James, yes, my landlord isn't aware if or when I get a raise. I've just been very, very fortunate that I've had a few promotions over the last couple of years that I've been able to survive Seattle's skyrocketing rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psst, Many small business owners, who just started their business, and pursing their dreams, don't even make 15 an hour for their take home pay after all expenses have been paid the first few years. Most small businesses don't make it. About 90 percent don't survive. The first few years are a struggle to keep the doors open for most. Small business creates most jobs. It's called CAPITALISM AND RISK THAT HIRES PEOPLE.  ENTREPRENEURSHIP.

 

ECON 101 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep on hearing that we don't have any inflation in the United States

You shouldn't read The National Enquirier, LOL. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2016 at 10:38 PM, JakeHolman said:

Most small businesses don't make it. It's well over 90 percent.

Small business create most jobs.

If most don't make it, they can't be creating all that many jobs. Not lasting ones, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't read The National Enquirier, LOL. ;)

 

I only read The National Enquirer if there is a picture of Doris Day on the cover.

 

I get my financial news from those 2 Men Who anchor CBS and NBC. I can't decide which one is better looking--

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things.

1.  Carl P. Leubsdorf had an interesting editorial re: how Democrats risk another Al Gore moment.

Basically, because the liberal wing gets mad that a "moderate" won the nomination, they do not support the Dem. nominee in the national election.

Not sure I agee, but Leubsdorf thinks that this led to Nixon defeating Humphrey and began the conservative swing on the Supreme Court.  Also believes that the liberals failing to support Carter in '80 contributed to Reagan's victory as well as GW Bush's win over Al Gore.

Will the Sanders supporters again contribute to a Republican (Trump) victory by failing to support Clinton?

 

2.  Raising the minimum wage helps all.  While prices/rents may go up, they may not.  This is up to the corporations, businesses, landlords, etc. Most will simply absorb it as they do other costs of business increases.  Oh, but they will complain and lobby against it until then.  They will also use it as an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway.  Such as raising rents, moving plants out of country, etc.

However, raising the minimum will give lowest paid workers more money to spend, therefore increasing volumes of production and sales.  This will lead to economies of scale for landlords, corporations and businesses.  They will also be able to sell their products with higher profit margins.

There will be an upward trend for those making just over minimum wage to receive increases as well. This is basic economics.  However, the businesses and corporations may decide to establish new wage scales whereby some positions pay the same.

Don't forget, the American economy has always had those that provided a lower cost product/service to be more competitive than the other guy.  That won't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...