Who is Yuri?

You are definitely confusing Socialism with Communism.

Did you vote for Reagan?

Here's the man who will be stumping with Bernie this week in South Carolina. hint: it's not O'Reilly. You don't happen to have a 'fro, do you TYtT? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWz5P-Fhxs

Playing hard to get only makes Bernie want you more, you irresistible s.o.b.

Kinda like Social Security, too.

I wish there were more supporters of Rand Paul. That would actually make sense to me.

You're partially right. All of the true Rand Paul fans are now undecided and leaning toward becoming Bernie supporters. You like huntin'? Vote Bernie. You hate Gov't surveillants? Vote Bernie. You like Independence? Vote Bernie. You Jewish, or at least Conservative? Vote Bernie. You a rich top-hat wearin' capitalist cartoon? Cry yer eyes out, because: This little Bern train is coming, coming down the track. You can ride this little Bern train but it ain't gonna bring you back, from Progressive, to 18th C.

I just knew that there was some social component to it.

Yeah, all those Manual lady friends. I think he should settle down, though. When is EJ going to finally tie the knot, and make his lady friend: Rosie Palmer-Manual an honest woman?

Oh. I kind of ignore Joe Biden in my political calculus. Obama's in a tough spot if his VP, former SoS, and a senator who campaigned for him are running against each other. I doubt Obama will choose sides, but I'd expect to hear more of "I'm friends with Joe," but not much more than that. Trump and Obama have a history, though, so if there's any speaking out from the White House, it will probably be to trash-talk Trump.

Got it.

If you think that the candidate who voted against the original Patriot Act, and every renewal, and has made ending NSA surveillance of US citizens part of his stump speech, will bring about some Orwellian dystopia, then you may want to rethink your archetypes.

Somebody pulling his pants down?

I followed your link, but I found no evidence of a man thinking that jobs are a 3 letter word. Color me disappointed. Among the highlights: Hillary talking in a hoarse voice - talking must be new to her. As you well know, he is an moderate independent, like any clear-eyed American should be. I respect your right to take as much time as you need to make a decision, good sir, before you come out for the moderate/conservative candidate of your choice (Bernie Sanders).

The finished product is what I didn't like: Stalinist, Maoism. The basis, Socialism, I don't have a problem with. You made a tasty turn of phrase though, with the sausages, and that didn't go unappreciated.

Sympathetic ear, here, GreggyT. I swear I saw a Sentinal drone buzz my place, but according to everyone I tell, the identity remains unidentified. The best I can get out of the folks I tell, is that it was some sort of common flying object. Two out of three ain't bad?

He qualifies that with the term "democratic." It's subtle, yet powerful. Because Stalin and Mao betrayed Socialism so greviously, such qualifications must be made. Indeed, calling Stalin or Mao socialists berns my ears. It's kind of like calling Trump a Conservative.

Do you figure Bernie has a response ready for the inevitable attacks on so-called socialism? It's so much nicer a word - Socialism - than Capitalism. Can what worked in Vermont work in swing states, like Ohio and Florida?

Civilian Conservation Corps? edit: also, your anti-smelt stance isn't going to win you any votes in Lewiston, NY. I went to the Smelt Festival this year, and they are Dee-licious.

OK. I've had that cyberspace thing happen, and it is frustrating. I'll hold off responding to what you ended up writing, and give you time to clarify. Did you think we should have just dropped an A-bomb on Iran, problem solved?

He's a great writer too, Eisenhower - not you DC Tom, though you're not bad. Eisenhower had tremendous populist appeal. He didn't give tremendous speeches, because his delivery wasn't very polished, but the speech writing was very good, and his letters are impressive, and his memoirs, the collection he wrote himself, are some of the best in that genre.

I did a little internet sleuthing on this Iran deal controversy. I don't see any merit in the argument that this deal "gives Iran a nuclear bomb," or "makes it easier" for them to make a bomb. Here is an example of the deal explained. I'm working on the impression that most of us haven't and don't plan to read the actual deal in its entirety. To me, it seems like Iran was a lot closer to having a bomb when this deal was made, than Iran will be when this deal goes into effect. If anything, their continued enrichment of Uranium, despite sanctions, put the rest of the world in a tough spot. Sanctions weren't working in the way that was intended. Sanctions seemed to motivate them further to create a nuclear weapon. At that point, we made the most out of a bad situation, and may have averted catastrophe. In the long run, this deal saves American lives. Under sanctions, Iran was much closer to having a bomb, than they will be with reduced capacity, and inspections. As was noted above, Russia and China would have lifted sanctions anyway. If Iran made a bomb, then what? Go to war, or let them have a bomb? This deal is a better alternative than either of those options.

"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer." - Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952 on his refusal to lower the top marginal tax rate on the rich from 91%.