You know, just because media outlets refuse to cover Bernie Sanders because they've invested money into other politicians, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

Well how do we know Bernie actually gives a ****? Well


An image of him getting chained to a black man, and arrested for supporting black rights. This dude isn't pure ****ing talk like all the other candidates. He actually takes action.



Fair, but his clothing line is still manufactured in China. And this doesn't make me believe any less that this is a small way to monetize.

Don't get me wrong. I like Bernie Sanders a lot. Some of the things he says are ridiculous (such as free college for everyone) but I figure that wouldn't happen anyways, even if he tried. My Dad liked Ben Carson, and I didn't for many reasons, but we both disagreed on a flat tax, and I told him that it wouldn't be implemented anyways. If Donald Trump isn't the nominee, ans Bernie Sanders is for the Democrats, I'd vote for Sanders. I don't deal with that party bull **** that everyone wants. I vote for the individual person. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who never acts fake. Even Trump acts fake. Hillary Clinton acts fake on a daily basis. I just want someone who will get good **** done.

As for the Sanders pic of him protesting, it disappoints me how little the media has given attention to that. They have pointed it out, but hardly put any time into it. It shows much of the media has their own agenda.

Well it seems to be working in some places

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education

And I like to think Norway has their **** together. But then it comes back to what I said earlier. Someone whose policies you don't like, but can make an impact, or someone whose policies you do like, but can't make an impact.

I'm all for assistance to those who need it, but I don't believe a millionaire should be taking government money for free college. Free college for everyone is my problem. It's that word, "everyone." Another good reason why I hatw flat tax. It hurts the poor and generally helps the rich. If it hurts the rich, then it hurts the poor that much more.

Edit: another one of my big issues with free college for everyone is people can take the gov. money but not put it to good use. I think a minimum GPA (a fairly high one at that) should be required for gov. funding to continue for each individual's free education. You see how people abuse gov. money with welfare and other gov. organizations. That's why I don't believe it should apply to everyone. It should be based on need, and implement some pretty high standards to make sure it's put to good use.

Bernie Sanders doesn't want a flat tax. He wants it to be flexible depending on your income, which isn't going to hurt the poor. Nor is it going to "hurt" the rich. If you don't want your taxes increased, don't become a millionaire.

Free education should be a right. That includes the millionaires which according to Sander's plan would be the ones funding it, so they are as entitled to it as everyone else.

Stop bringing things up as an argument against Bernie that aren't really relevant... It's annoying tbh. No offense.

And this is why I think free education should be a right. Education used to mean a lot. Without it you couldn't get a decent paying job. Obviously free education would require a highschool diploma. There not just going to let anyone in because it's free, but just because someone has a less than average IQ it should exclude them from an education to make a living wage in a career?

Free education is working fine in places like Norway, but you never hear them talk about it because they don't have asshole politicians that can't stop talking about how big their **** is.

Lol. You read way too much into what I say. I brought up flat tax because I thought about it. It had nothing to do with Bernie Sanders, nor did I say it did. Please, don't continue inferring things incorrectly from me, and you will no longer be annoyed. I even said I liked Sanders. I don't get why you're "annoyed" by my continuous arguments against him when I never argued against him once. The only thing I brought up that I disagreed with was free college for everyone, and that had nothing to do as an argument against Bernie Sanders. It had to do with my personal opinion. You seriously read what isn't even there when it comes to my posts, and that's what's annoying you...

Education isn't free. It costs money. That is paid for by the government and taxes. College costs a lot more. Debt is a major issue. IQ has nothing to do with it. IQ doesn't prevent you from getting good grades, it just means you have to work harder than others might have to, and that's just how life works. The thing is that they would let everyone in since it's free. That's how the gov. works. Welfare is a joke because of the gov. People would abuse it, not try in college, and many other possibilities. That's why if they're using taxpayer money, they need to prove that they are utilizing it fully by meeting minimum standards. What's the problem with requiring someone to put effort into college that they are getting for free?

Then why would you bring up flat taxes and free education? What in the world does that have to do with? Because you thought of it? No one is talking about flat taxes. It's not relevant. You were on the topic of Bernie and included flat taxes in the same paragraph and you don't expect me to misinterpret that?

Why am I always the one reading too much into what you say? Like on the million dollar thread, you seemed to be the only one to make up metaphorical situations, and when I countered yours you made the excuse that it was metaphorical and I'm reading too far into it. Of course I'm going to analyze this because it's straight up bull****. Your aloud to say whatever you want, but if I call you out on something it's my fault.

Trump is an asshole who wants to **** the country and you want to give an asshole the benefit of the doubt, while claiming that Bernie is nice, but you don't want to vote for him in the primaries. If you can't see how that doesn't make any sense then you're a lost cause. Why can't you give someone like Bernie benefit of the doubt. He has actually contributed to movements of this country.

I never said they didn't need to put effort into it. I just said they shouldn't exclude someone because they aren't as capable. Everyone should have the right to it. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it's handed to everyone on a silver platter.

I mentioned flat tax because I was talking about gov. programs/laws applying to "everyone" and I had just talked about Ben Carson wanting flat tax 2 minutes before in the previous post. I usually never even divide my responses into multiple paragraphs. I just recently started striving to do that, but it's just not how I write. Every single belief of mine is its own individual belief and may vary well change in another context. I never "countered" by making an excuse that you read too far. If you start implying opinions of mine based on something else I said, that is your own fault. Situations as complex as the ones in politicans cannot be defined with blanket statements. Each statement of mine applies to that given situation only. If you would like clarification on anything, I'd be happy to provide it, but it's not my fault if you infer things I never imply in my statements. I already voted in the Primaries and voted for Trump. I'm a "lost cause" because I voted for Trump (whom I like) rather than Bernie (whom I also like)? That doesn't make much sense. I'm perfectly capabale of liking more than one candidate. I've provided my reasoning for my favoring Trump plenty of times in my posts to you, so you should be able to go back and find why I like Trump. You keep saying that Trump will do nothing but Bernie will do everything he says. You don't know that, nor do I. Neither of them could end up fulfilling their promises. Please don't act like Sanders is a 100% actionable candidate when we won't know truly know until he's President. I get you're biased toward Trump so you continuously attack him, but I don't have bias towards any candidate when I look into them. I told you I'm all for government assistance, even to the point of full payment. I just believe it should be based on need, and there should be minimum requirements that are set to a high standard (my college requires a 2.0 GPA for most minimum standards, which honestly is a joke). I brought up minimum requirements because the gov. is notorious for handing out silver platters. Hence why I brought up Welfare. See, I get going on this stuff and I don't separate different topics. This is why you can't infer that one sentence is linked to another. :D Also I basically have also given Bernie Sanders the benefit of the doubt because I said he would most likely get my vote if he won the nomination and Trump didn't. Just because I decided that I wanted to vote for Trump over Sanders doesn't mean I don't give Sanders the benefit of the doubt, or that I don't support him.

And whose fault is that?

It's the correct way. You don't have to like it.

I've asked twice on why you want drugs to stay illegal in 2 separate threads. Still no answer.

No, I said you're a lost cause because you give the benefit of the doubt to Trump. He's egotistical and his policies won't work but you seem to praise him for trying, whereas you criticism Sanders policies for being impossible (which they aren't). Double ****ing standards.

Please tell me where I said this, because I can't remember it every happening.

You're aloud to explain yourself, but don't blame it on me. It's not my fault you refuse to use paragraphs. It's just how grammar works.

Because you have some sort of "special" way of writing that I should have known, and since I didn't it's all my fault.

Books don't use paragraphs. There's no correct way of writing. Don't get pissed at me because you disagree with my style of writing. I only started trying to use paragraphs because someone suggested it. I only said one policy of Sanders was probably never going to happen (never said impossible) and you can continue thinking all of Trump's policies won't work, but I disagree. There's no double standard. I like Trump's ideas more than Sanders, and I believe he would be the better choice. What the hell is a double standard between 2 crazy-haired white guys? I liked Trump more, you like Sanders more. Don't go making dumb excuses by calling it a "double standard." As for why I want drugs to remain illegal, I don't remember being asked that before. You don't need attitude when you ask me these questions. There's a lot to read (especially in other threads where multiple people post long posts) and I can only cover what I remember. (insert paragraph separation here). If you want my full drug reasoning, I'll give it to you. It's complex, though. First of all, I want cigarettes to become illegal (that includes the BS electronic cigarettes that still have nicotine) . I believe that should be achieved by raising the age limit one year at a time until everyone's dead who could have legally purchased them. I understand that many, many people would disagree with that. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug that only does harm. In the event that this law couldn't be passed, I would make it illegal to smoke in public (none of these smoking-designated areas). It would also be illegal to smoke if you have pets or kids in your house. Just because someone wants to smoke, doesn't give them the right to damage their kid/pet that can't say anything about that situation. Drugs should stay illegal. We see how much alcohol is abused already, the last thing we need is easier access to mind-altering drugs that make users potentially pose a danger to society (through driving or really any way, since they aren't thinking clearly). Throwing non-violent drug users in jail, along with other violent criminals is the worst idea ever. Drug users should go to mandatory rehab, where they are not allowed to leave until the medical doctors there approve that they're ready. The CJ system focuses not even on punishment that much now, but more as a temporary housing, and it's a waste of taxpayer money. Why should marijuana become legal? Just because some people do it? Some people murder, in fact, I would think there's many more murderers in America than there are marijuana users. By that logic, murder should become legal. It makes no sense. Drug-use poses a high potential risk of danger to the user and others nearby. I have a whole idea on alcohol, but it's not even 7 AM and that's a long post for another time.

Okay, arguable books like "Goodnight Moon" don't use paragraphs. Once you work your way up to the big boy books, you're gonna have to get used to them though


Yes, those paragraphs are as long as yours, but notice how they are all on the same topic? They aren't run-on-paragraphs like yours.

You, and people like you excuse Trump from so much ****. He's ego-tastical and you acknowledge that. I've argued and provided citation that his plans downright won't work, yet you still seem to praise them without providing one of his policies that would be effective. But you don't think free education is going to work and that's your argument against Bernie? Stop claiming you like him. His policies are practically the opposite from Trump. It feels like you're just making **** up as you go. Like for example:

Here's an idea: Stop spewing bull****, or vote for who you want to be president. It's not hard.

I quote everything you say individually so I'm surprised you missed it twice.

Basically what I see from this is you're against it because it's harmful to other people, which yeah I agree is a bad thing, but if they're only harming themselves, let em? It's their body. Who the **** is anyone to say what they can and can't do?

I think that if someone where to do any harm to someone high, they'd most likely do it sober. If it had the same laws of alcohol where being intoxicated in public was illegal, just don't be a dumbass?

On the part where you mentioned phasing out cigarettes, you'd be surprised by how many minors under 16 smoke regularly. Even if that weren't a fact, where's the cutoff point? So many people start once they can legally buy cigarettes, that it would be impossible.

is the influx of hackers and trump debate even relevant? :rolleyes:

I was banned for racism. I blame Trump.

First off: you need to calm down. Suicide is illegal in America, if you didn't know. The laws are made to protect each individual, from themselves and others. You attempt to hurt yourself in prison, and you'll be isolated to a protective room. The problem is it doesn't just harm the user. They smoke around other people. They smoke around their kids. They smoke around their pets. If you smoke in a house when no one is home, and your kids come home later, the smoke is still on the walls and in that room's atmosphere and you still get secondhand smoke. "You'd be surprised how many minors under 16 smoke regularly." Well, thanks for assuming things for me, but once again, that's wrong. I knew people in junior high school that smoked. I knew people in high school that used drugs. People doing it underaged has nothing to do with it. It's illegal for them to do it, so they aren't a part of the worry. The cutoff point will be 18 for the first year, and will go up 1 year, each year, as I said exactly in my previous post. It will raise 1 year at a time until no one is left alive who can legally buy them. There are many systems in place that if you attempt to hurt yourself, or even just say you will, you will be held against your will. It's a system to protect that individual's well-being. As for other drugs, as I said, mandatory rehab should be the consequence of being caught using illegal drugs. As for me liking Sanders, wow. You really can't understand the fact that I can like Sanders and Trump, but you really, really, can't stand that I like Trump more. Because I like Trump more, I'm "Spewing bull ****"? I already voted a while ago. I voted for Trump. Why can't I like the color Yellow and Purple at the same time? They're opposites. The problem with these party-obsessed people that you seem to have shown you are - with your "they're opposites" statement, saying I can't like both - is that both parties essentially want the same thing in the end, they just have different ways to go about doing it. You keep getting so pissed and saying my argument against Bernie is free education. I pointed out one thing I disagreed with, and you blew up with it. You think I agree with everything Trump says? Hell no. The only person I'll ever 100% agree with is myself. I get you don't like Trump, and apparently you're very passionate about that, but please, it's getting annoying, stop acting like I'm "spewing bull ****" and that I'm lying about liking Sanders? That's just comical. You really need to calm down and stop being so biased about this. You pointed out one thing that showed one of Trump's plans wouldn't work. In fact, I mentioned the article that says walls don't work, you simply said it would hurt wildlife. I agree also a wall alone wouldn't work, but if it's manned, it could possibly help a lot. If you can't handle other people's opinions disagreeing with you, then you have a lot to learn in life. You obviously like Sanders, and hate Trump, and I accept that. I don't curse at you, say you're "spewing bull ****" or anything like that, though. I enjoy discussions like this, but if you can't handle it, I won't continue. It really is getting annoying and you need to control yourself.

this thread was a joke anyways, so I helped take it off-topic :) Colin hardly checks Zone's subforum anyways, so it will probably be a while before this thread/these posts are deleted.

I'm glad you bakas derailed my fine thread. Th-Thanks!

http://i.imgur.com/8ZPv7HF.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DbCn8w7.jpg


Thanks friendly zone staff!