One Does Not Simply

If those are the top two, that doesn't say much for the party.

I spit coffee! Is there a meme for that?

Meanwhile we have a woman, two Latinos, tall skinny guy, short fat guy, had an Indian dude, have a black guy....y'all played it safe...stuck to cuppla whiteys that's stick to the old go tos of race baiting, class warfare....don't blame ya, don't take chances like us...stick what y'all know, what works......

Yup, playing if safe, pulling the old Jewish socialist card. If you don't get the irony of wanting your rivals to be more diverse while a fear mongering racist leads the polls for your party, then there is no need for further conversation.

No, What I'm saying is that's not ironic. Your statement was another literal misunderstanding of the word. People often misuse it to sound intelligent and fail, miserably. Don't be embarrassed, you're 1 in a million.

And I don't care if they're diverse or not. I'm just beating them over their heads with their own mallet. The left constantly speaks of the relevance of diversity. Firsts. First black thus, first female that. Now suddenly diversity obviously doesn't matter. To the right and if uts radical as another dork on here refers to it, so be it. But it puts on display the fact that conservatism, and the desire to better crosses all barriers. We truly don't see color. The left does. The fact that we have Indian, black, Hispanic etc. No big deal to us. Just like when our only choices are whute, doesn't matter to us. We know we're right, color regardless.

PS...once again the ever elusive true meaning of the word irony, escapes the speaker

And out my nose too!!!! Freaking HILARIOUS MEME!!!!

People his age have an average net worth of $181,000. Sanders is listed around $700,000. He has a guaranteed income the rest of his life. FREE health insurance the rest of his life. Yeah ... he's rich compared to Joe Average. Filthy Stinkin' Rich.

He is above "average' but is not even in the top 20% of net worth for people his age. ). Doesn't receive "free healthcare" the rest of his life. Paid into the pension plan. Plus:
"All Members of Congress pay Social Security payroll taxes, regardless of their other retirement plan coverage... Members of Congress, like all other
workers covered by Social Security, pay Medicare Hospital Insurance taxes on all earnings at a rate of 1.45% of pay."
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APLC8%22%40%20%20%0A

With a $700,000 net worth, you're saying he isn't in the top 20%? HAHAHA! He most certainly IS in the top 20th percentile. I could give you link after link after link, but you won't read them because you have on Bernie Blinders.

Ole Bern makes sure he doesn't disclose his real estate holdings (not required of Senators). t is known that he and/or his wife own at least two homes—one with rental income in Vermont and one near Capitol Hill where the median home value is $722,000.

The more he crows about "the evil rich" the more people are examining his own financial status ... and his wife, including their financial disclosure report. The conclusion? They have a net worth in the range of $1.2 to $1.5 million, not the $700,000 or less that is usually reported by the media.

… his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, left her position as president of Burlington College under controversial circumstances and is now being accused of federal bank fraud. She left her position at the college and was given a severance package known as a “golden parachute” that also benefited Senator Sanders’ personal wealth.

Hmmm: The old “cut the wife big checks from nonprofits” gambit has a long history among Democrats.

Get rid of the Bernie Blinders.

1) You are automatically assuming the top estimate of his net worth ot higher, and ignoring the estimates you don't like-- your bias is showing
2) $700,000 net worth is barely in the top 20% for people 70-80, 80.57% according to this site:
http://www.shnugi.com/networth-percentile-calculator/?min_age=70&max_age=80&networth=700000
3) $700,000 net worth for ages 0 to 100 comes in at 86.55% percentile-- so basically you think about 14% are "rich". Even at $1.2 million, it's still only 92.21%-- not even in the top 5% of net worth, basically just in the top 24 million us citizens citizens.

Ps-- you assume a I support Bernie Sanders, when actually I just support facts, whch the radical right and radical left seem to dislike

[image deleted]

How convenient to refer ones self as moderate, while the others are radical.

LOL! Dude, Bernie is the radical. There's no one running more left than him. Blinders. Blinders. Blinders.

Ok, now I know you can't read. I said ... "compared to Joe Average" that's he's filthy stinkin' rich. Come back when you can read and you've taken off your radical left wing blinders.

You're quite the disciple. Those blinders must be giving you blisters on the side of your head. Sanders has a net worth 21.7 times that of Joe Average. Get a clue. He's filthy stinkin' rich compared to the average American.

Except he's not filthy stinking rich compared to "joe average"-- again, I posted the data, stop ignoring it because you're so desperate to cling to your radical propaganda. In his age bracket his net worth is 81st percentile.
With "average Joe" at 50th, the moderate person who doesn't ignore the data realizes that calling him "Filthy Stinkin' Rich" is nonsense.

Yes, take your blinders off, and stop sticking your fingers in your ears. I never said I support Bernie for Potus, I presented facts to counter the ludicrous claims that he is "Filthy Stinkin' Rich"<-- your words, which means that you think, depending on whether we look at income or net worth, that between 12million (1 in 25 or so) and 50million (1 in 6.5) US citizens are "Filthy Stinkin' Rich"... I guess that's the radical rightwing class warfare getting you to attack the upper middleclass instead of their Koch overlords.

Seems like someone sooooo level headed and MoDeRaTe wouldn't modify the opposition with words like radical. That's a keenly immoderate tactic. That's like call-in someone fat, ugly, stupid, etc....when they respond ooooo look at this, they're defensive

Your offensive meme highlights the fact that your MoDErAtE moral high ground is faultier than Obama's and Hillary's explanation of BENGHAZI

You need tell Obama what his supporters' ,like you obviously, definition of rich is. He defined it as $150K.... And elitists Ricky Schroeder wannabes like yourself believe $250K to be middle class.

Up to that for a family of four is the upper middleclass if they make around that-- many doctors, dentists, lawyers, small businesspeople, plumbing company owners. The middleclasses are not one exact blob right around $50000-90000 income as you seem to think, with anyone who makes above that "Rich" in your mind. You seem to forget that those who make under $250,000 for a family of four (where Obama, Sanders, and most Democrats who propose raising taxes say the new taxes should start) pay on average about 30%+ of their income in federal taxes, whereas once we start getting to the actual rich their effective federal tax rate drops (thanks to Reagan and 30+ years of "trickle down" nonsense-- which every GOP candidate except maybe one wants to continue), until we rich the actual "filthy rich" of the Forbes 400-- average income about $400million, average overall effective tax rate about 19%. The Kochs really have you radicals in their back pockets, keeping their federal tax rates well below those of the upper middeclasses/lower rich-- those doctors, lawyers, construction company owners, small businesspeople who are the real engine of the nation, and who you attack as "rich", while the Kochs/Romneys, Adelsons et alia laugh all the way to the Caymans, having waged class warfare on the middles for 30 years, and winning because people like you attacking .

I admire your MoDeRaTe sensibilities....where you MoDeRaTeLy refer to those who don't agree with you as RADICAL. That's an attack. Therefore not moderate. So far you haven't said anything moderAte. Your whole position is to defend and make excuses for every democrat in history all the while defending the usual victims of msnbc....like the Koch bros. You're very transparent. You know that under current leadership and with potential democrat victory in November(which of course would be a continuation of present failed foreign and domestic policy) democrats are nothing to be proud of. So therefore you claim to have some moral and intellectual high ground by proclaiming to be a moderate. Meanwhile your BELLIGERENT ATTACKS on one side. And defense of the other proves otherwise. I proudly profess my conservative beliefs. Shame Shame Shame...everyone knows your name. Liberal.

*Attack usual victims of msnbc

Nice try radical, but it is your IDEAS that make you moderate or radical, and yours clearly do makeyour rightwing radical-- still defending the Kochs and keeping their taxes lower than those who make 1/3000th as as they do, like your doctor, lawyer, and yes Sanders-- who you attack as "rich"... keep fighting for the truly rich to pay lower taxes than your doctor, you'll get to that neo-feudalism eventually. I am moderate because of what I stand for-- like the truly rich paying the same effective tax rate as those who make 1/3000th as much. You're so radical you probably call Reagan, and Dole, and Alan Simpson and McCain "rinos". You imagine that presenting facts and data against your radical ideas is belligerent. You stick your fingers in your ears when the facts show you to be wrong. You imagine that someone who presents those facts is the other radical extreme, while you present no facts to support your claim.

No Richie liberal elitist crybaby, I consider myself far beyond your head in the sand msnbc addicted buzzwords like radical right. I don't need polish my image like you. Ashamed of your bleeding heart. I'm ultra conservative. If al Sharpton and Debbie blabbermouth Schultz haven't told you what that is yet. I'm your opposition. Unwavering, uncloaked, determined to destroy your old timey archaic Thinking that's been hell bent on destroying this country the last 100 years. I'm proud conservative. Show yourself vile fiend. Thought art a liberal silver spoon fed your heaping helping of white guilt by militant anti American commies like Al, Bernie, Hillary, Joe, Debbie everyday. Why not be proud of youngsters for your grandparents generation and the country they live and worked hard for. I'm sure you don't cry over your spilled cup o 6$ Starbucks while I leave 1 am to go work for 11$ an hour. It grows on trees doesn't it.

Lol-- the usual radical playbook, launch into ad hominem and then admit that you actually are a radical --"I'm ultra conservative".
Lol, yep, you're a radical, same as someone who calls themselves "ultraliberal".

Not youngsters your HATRED of

I'm not supporting him for his net worth, I'm supporting him because of two reasons.

Voting History

Better than any other candidate that has a chance.

That's fine just wish rest of your brethren would be as honest as you, that principle and issues don't matter....they just wanna win

Yeah, but thats politics. Bernie is probably the most honest of the candidates, but Trump holds that position for the Republicans, so it isn't something to base your opinion off of.

We'll I'll admit I was on the at least BS is. An honest socialist. He spouts it's glory, and what he can do to transform officially America into complete socialism. He doesn't take advantage of the clear ignorance of his constituents like Hillary. He WAS honest. Now he's net with the irreverent Al Shartin. Al told him if he wants the vote of his flock he can't simply rely on socialism. That's too broad a concept. He has to talk down to them. In way they'll understand. He made his central issue institution al racism now. The old cash cow of liberalism. He's just another politician with no integrity. He was bought off with promises of votes given by a flick that belongs to the man that accused some random white people of gang raping and smarting FECES on tawana brawley.know you youngsters don't remember. Look it up. He had to admit was a lie.

Smearing, flock

Uhhhh....just as usual the leaders of socialism, communism remain at the very least above average, wealthy while the plebeians at the bottom get scarf down on their scraps

He makes more than $ 200K a year, by class warfare based politicians' standards practically billionaire

His salary of $174,000 doesn't even put him in the top 3% of the nation in income. It's about halfway to being in the 1%.

The "class warfare" politicians are on the radical right-- they've waged war on the middleclasses for 30+ years with "trickle down" economics, cutting the taxes of the very wealthy and moving that tax burden down onto the middlelcasses, creating a backwards tax system in which people who make what Bernie does pay a much higher total federal effective tax rate than those who make 100 times (Romney) to 3000+ times more per year (Kochs).

FORTUNE MAGAZINE Value Driven by Geoff Colvin
The government's new definition of rich
President Obama's tax plan won't help balance the budget, and it may hurt the upper middle class.
By Geoff Colvin, senior editor at large
Last Updated: May 5, 2009: 12:09 PM ET

(Fortune Magazine) -- Are you rich? If you make $250,000 a year, President Obama and Gov. David Paterson of New York think you are. The SEC disagrees. It tells financial firms that a high-net-worth individual is someone with at least $750,000 parked at a particular institution or someone the firm "reasonably believes" to have a net worth exceeding $1.5 million.

The reason this debate matters is that federal and state governments are looking at the worst deficits ever seen. In their desperate search for funds, they are going to tax some subset of the wealthy. Let's hope they train their cross hairs where they do the least damage.

When President Obama said he would raise taxes on the wealthy, he set the increases to start at an income of about $250,000. Gov. Paterson recently worked out a rise in New York's state income tax that takes effect at the same level. If all that those politicians mean by "rich" is the small portion of the population at the top of the economic heap, then households making over $250,000 is a fair definition: Only about 5% of U.S. households have annual incomes over $200,000.

The flaw in that definition of rich is that plenty of families making $250,000 a year don't feel rich. They probably see themselves as upper middle class, especially if they live in blue-state coastal cities and suburbs. An income of $250,000 is a lot richer in Abilene, Texas, than in New York's Nassau County, where it takes $430,000 to enjoy a similar quality of life, according to bankrate.com. So let's call them the "working rich."

What's troubling about raising the tax burden on the working rich is that this group already pays proportionately more tax than the super-rich. In addition, the working rich aren't as adept at sheltering their wealth from the tax man through deferred-compensation schemes or other loopholes.

In 2006, the most recent year for which information is available, the average tax rate for the working rich was 22.8% - that is, after all was said and done, they ended up paying 22.8% of their adjusted gross income in income tax. The floor for being in the top 1% was an income of $388,806. That same year the average tax rate paid by the super-rich - the 400 filers with the highest

You don't honestly believe a career grandpa-litician takes home the meager salary of the incoming freshmen do you?

Senator salary is the same across the board no matter how long one is in the Senate , except that the majority leader and pro tempore make more ($193,400).
Facts, stubborn things.

It's funny how were constantly told anyone in position of authority like politicians lie and are inherently by their very nature corrupt, swayed by gifts. Then suddenly, when they're libs they couldn't possibly receive kickbacks or say anything without a silver tongue. Ironically, the entitlements given by these guys to 1 half their constituents and the guilt passes given for voting for the race baiting class warlords buys their judgement.

Well said. Oh, I forgot to mention insider trading, book deals, etc.

Meant to say to the other half for etc.

The goal of Sanders Hillary Obama and all lies is to destroy the middle class by taxing it into non existence to pay for all the entitlement s for loafers out there level the playing. Field where everyone's poor as aturd sucking on the govt test and voting for the politicos that will continually promise the entitlement s.

What you state is false-- taxes have been shifted onto the actual middleclasses (those making $30k to $250k a year) by rightwingers pushing "trickle down" nonsense on the nation for 30 years.. and we are seeing the clear and predicted results-- widening income inequality, widening wealth inequality. The "trickle down" scam is the plutocrats' dram-- moving the nation step-bu-step toward their desired neo-feudalism.

That's a pretty vast playing field you got there for the middle class. 30-250K a year. Why don't you live come down from your ivory towers away from your laptops and ask the average American working person. One that works with their sweat, legs, back, hands in mills, trucks, factories etc. If they feel like they're in the same boat someone akin 75K much less 250 a year. You just keep moving the numbers around wherever you want 4th gem to meet y'all arguments end. Robert Reich and Obama kept juggling the rich figure back and forth from 150to 500K for years....now you're saying 250K middle class. Hillary-ous.

Yes, it's vast-- just being destroyed slowly as the top end amount gets hammered down by taxes foisted on them by the radical right to offset the cuts to the truly rich, as income inequality grows. Sure, $174,000 a year is "rich" to you-- seems you've fallen for the radical rightwing "trickle down" nonsense hook-line-and-sinker, making class warfare on the top of the middleclasses, and then you attack the working poor also (hint-- much of those "entitlements" you hate go to the working poor), while you likely rail against raising the minimum wage-- just like the Kochs want you to, lol. And the plutocrats ship their tax cuts off to the Caymans, while you complain that, somehow, you don't know why (because "trickle down" works, in your mind) those "and average American workers" salaries stagnate, and the economy slowly is bleed dry by those who are really rich (no, not that person making $175,000, lol).

Libs not live

Not lies...ilk not test teet

Did notice you didn't bother arguing the diversity, age, new ideas issue....smart

Did, above-- hint: see current POTUS' age and race. Hint 2: female candidate, likely nominee (and likely next POTUS).

Really do not get the working poor attack thing at all. What in god's name are you talking about. I was asking your bleeding heart to bleed a Lil for average Joe's and Joanne's out there that don't even make 75K. You're so outta touch you think 250K is middle class. What in the hell would you know bout anyone poor much less working in that case. Working poor one your lines picked up from irreverent al fartston and msnbc. You're a clueless nincompoop

"Really do not get the working poor attack thing at all. What in god's name are you talking about."
Then here's you, basically spouting that old Romney 47% nonsense:
"Ironically, the entitlements given by these guys to 1 half their constituents "

Hint: most of that "half" is working. you know, the working people you claim to be for, when you're not against them....
Keep on hating those upper middlecass people making $174,00 a year while pretending that it's the other side that promotes class warfare...
spinning , spinning, the radical rightwing propaganda has you spinning, lol.
Your position is so confused you are running yourself in circles.To you

Noticed still shying away from thediversity issue. Don't blame ya. Also interesting you arrogantly referred to the likely nomination of Hillary for Pres. You wouldn't wanna open the can I worms on her finances would you?