Susan Sarandon has a great locale for your next workers' council meeting.

[DanTex]

As she put it so eloquently on MSNBC, electing Trump would hasten the advent of "The Revolution." If her brave words inspired anyone, I know just the place where average people can get together and discuss how to further her revolutionary goals.

That's right, it's Spin: her ping-pong nightclub right by trendy Madison Square Park in Manhattan. You shouldn't have any trouble finding it: it's around the corner from the Credit Suisse US headquarters, and a block from the skyrise where Rupert Murdoch just sold his penthouse for $72M.

Spin is a casual joint where, with a five day advance reservation, "real people" can enjoy an hour of ping-pong for the bargain price of $99. Perfect for anyone interested in seizing the means of production. Of course, if you want a little more privacy while discussing the plight of the proletariat, and the importance of the Trump campaign as an agent of social change, they also have private rooms.

And I've got to hand it to her. She nailed the industrial/warehouse look. From the distressed wood floors up to the open ceiling with exposed ducts, this place will make you feel like you're toiling away in a factory, dreaming of the better world that Trump will deliver. And all the while sipping from a $500 bottle of perfectly chilled Russian vodka. Bernie or Bust! Vsia vlast' Sovetam!

[virtualobserver]

1. It is called a business...I'll take that over Hillary selling herself for cash.

Susan donates her time and money to charity....money that she has earned as a working actress. Hillary and Bill have amassed a fortune giving short speeches.

Ridiculing the rich who dedicate their lives to helping others used to be something only Republicans did.

Not anymore.

[RiverLover]

4. +1

Susan Sarandon is an exceptionally bright star. We're lucky she gives a damn & is out there fighting for People & Planet.

[DanTex]

6. Umm, Hillary has donated and done much more for charity than Susan ever has.

And also, Hillary doesn't go on national television and talk about how, gee, maybe it would be good if Trump got elected.

[virtualobserver]

11. Susan didn't say that, so you "misspoke"....Hillary didn't earn a dime of the money....

that she donated, unlike Susan. Big Corporations have been shooting cash at her out of a fire hose.

[DanTex]

13. She certainly did.

And, yes, Hillary earned every dime that she made. She's been voted the most admired woman in the world for some 15 years. Some kooks on the far left hate her, but in the real world, she's widely admired for her intelligence and experience.

[virtualobserver]

15. If she "earned" her money, then she works for the investment banks and Big Pharma.....

and corporate America in general. Wow, Dantex....you make a hell of a good case.

[DanTex]

16. She gave speeches for a lot of different organizations.

BTW, everyone who isn't self-employed works for a "corporation". Sarandon sure made a lot of money from the entertainment industry.

[virtualobserver]

18. You got that right....a lot.

When you scrutinize the people who gave her money, you uncover their motives.

Sarandon worked honestly in the entertainment industry. Hillary, as you have now confirmed, works for a wide range of corporations.

[DanTex]

19. That's correct. And conspiracy theories from the left-wing fringe notwithstanding,

giving paid speeches is a source of income for a lot of high-profile people from politics, business, entertainment, etc.

In fact, if you're interested in hearing more about how great it would be to elect Trump, that can be arranged too, for a price:
http://speakerpedia.com/speakers/susan-sarandon

[virtualobserver]

20. When did open, legalized bribery become a conspiracy?

Conspiracies are hatched in secret. This is hiding in plain sight.

[DanTex]

24. Calling paid speeches "legalized bribery" without a trace of evidence is a conspiracy theory.

Are they also bribery when Susan Sarandon takes them? Or just when it's someone you hate?

[virtualobserver]

26. only when people are running for political office

Everyone has always known that Hillary would run for President.

The same people have given her cash outright, funded her campaign,and funded her SuperPACS.

[DanTex]

27. Umm... which she wasn't doing at the time.

It's hilarious... you want to exclude anyone who's ever worked for a corporation from ever running for political office in the future.

I guess, from that perspective, it's a good thing the Bernie bummed around Vermont for 20 years before joining the Liberty Union Party.

[virtualobserver]

32. no, I object to money being shot at her with a fire hose just before she runs

"She is fighting for us" should be the new motto for corporate America.

[DanTex]

33. Before she was running, she had a right to earn a living like anyone else.

And when you're the most admired woman in the world 15-years running, people pay a lot to see you speak.

She is fighting for us, unlike people like Sarandon who are fighting for Trump, and your conspiratorial accusations are baseless.

[virtualobserver]

35. Thanks for continuing to confirm that she earned a living working for "too big to fail" banks....

and corporate America.

Here is a video of Susan Sarandon "fighting for Trump"

[DanTex]

37. Only a small part of her earnings came from financial institutions.

Facts seem to be completely foreign to you and other Hillary-bashers.

As for Sarandon fighting for Trump, the fact that she knows his racist tendencies and is still willing to cheer on his presidency for "the revolution" makes it worse, not better. She can't claim ignorance.

[virtualobserver]

41. Since Susan didn't say that....you can't claim ignorance either....

your misrepresentation of her words must be deliberate.

I don't bash Hillary. I just tell the truth about her and you think it is bashing.

Your candidate is wallowing in corporate cash in every way possible.

Don't run from it. Own it.

[DanTex]

43. She's on video. The only one being ignorant here is you.

And, like I said, everyone with a job earns "corporate cash". Maybe you only want chronically unemployed people to run for office. Not me.

[virtualobserver]

45. Having money shot at you with a fire hose isn't a job.

[DanTex]

47. No, but giving speeches is.

[virtualobserver]

54. Tonight Hillary Clinton is in New York City at a fundraiser with the former CFO......

....of the huge investment bank Morgan Stanley.

the executives from Morgan Stanley must have liked what they heard in those speeches.

[DanTex]

58. Sounds good, she's gonna need money to defeat the GOP.

[Tanuki]

70. She's in Harlem this morning at the Apollo Theatre, speaking at a free rally.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/events/view/PA3NIAN2X5D2VFRN/
She'll also be at a "LGBT for Hillary" event this evening.
Why aren't these important to you?
BTW, Ruth Porat, whom you seek to dehumanize and anonymize, did work for Morgan Stanley in the past, but she is now the CFO of Google.

[virtualobserver]

72. I'm pointing out what I disagree with.....not detailing her schedule

Sorry if pointing out that she was CFO and Executive VP at Morgan Stanley dehumanizes her.

[Fla Dem]

65. When asked if she'd vote for HRC she said..

Sarandon appeared on Chris Hayes’s MSNBC show Tuesday night, where she made her case for Sanders, citing his record on free trade, prisons, genetically modified foods, and more. Hayes pointed out that elections are choices, and asked whether she would vote for Clinton in a general election matchup against Donald Trump.

“I think Bernie would probably encourage people [to vote Clinton], because he doesn’t have a lot of ego in this,” she said. “But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to do that.’” As for herself, “I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.”

“Really?” an incredulous Hayes asked.

“Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately,” she replied.

Hayes accused her of adopting “the Leninist model of ‘heighten the contradictions,’” and she happily agreed. Isn’t that dangerous, he wondered?

“If you think it’s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you’re not in touch with the status quo,” she said.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/susan-sarandon-bernie-sanders/475875/

This approach worked so well for Ralph Nader. What did he ever accomplish except to help Bush be appointed President in 2000, So we ended up with 9/11, the Iraq War, and so many anti-progressive Supreme Court decisions. Elections have consequences. Where was the Great Revolution? Oh sure we had Occupy Wall Street, to what end? What did they accomplish?

Where are all these lefties during the mid-terms. Change starts from the bottom up. OWS would have been better off supporting progressives and getting them elected to local and state positions as assembly people, mayors, state reps, senators and congressmen and governors. That's where you effect change. But that's hard work. If and that's a big if, Bernie gets elected, without the senate and congress working with him NOTHING WILL CHANGE. He'll get the same stonewalling Obama faced for his 8 years.

Bernie is not a compromiser, as evidenced by all the bills he voted against that were 90% laws to help "We the People" but may have had an amendment he didn't like so he voted against.

Also in all his years in congress and the senate, he's introduced a ton of legislation, but only 3 bills were ever passed, 2 were for the naming of Post offices in Vt. So he hasn't really shown an ability to build consensus.

https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%7D

So Susan Sarandon can call for Revolution all she wants. Didn't happen in 2000 and won't happen in 2016.

By the way, I will vote for Bernie if he is the nominee. Hopefully he'll make good decisions in nominating Supreme Court Justices.

[virtualobserver]

66. She was talking about other people saying that....as for herself, "she didn't know"

[redstateblues]

84. still no poof of quid pro quo-still waiting

More baseless accusations. Envy is an ugly emotion

[Marr]

86. lol, 'she gave speeches for different organizations'.

That's an incredibly generous way to put it. This would be a more accurate description:

Hillary walks into Goldman Sachs building. An hour goes by. Hillary walks out of Goldman Sachs building carrying a mountain of bags with little dollar signs painted on them.

That's some business model.

[rogerashton]

129. Um, no.

everyone who isn't self-employed works for a "corporation".

No, many who are not self-employed work for single proprietors, partnerships, or foundations. Anyway, what is your point here? Are you saying

We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone.

as Rand Paul tells us?

[DanTex]

130. Good point, there are other kinds of employers I left out. But still, a huge number of Americans

work for corporations. And my point is that fact that Hillary is one of those people is a really dumb thing to smear her about.

[rogerashton]

131. This whole thread is really dumb.

Sarandon's "Nach Hitler, Uns" position is even dumber, though.

As for Hillary, there is a difference between working for a corporation and selling out to a corporation. Just sayin'. As to whether Hillary has sold or will sell out -- let's just say that there are going to be some really disappointed billionaires if she has not.

But yes, I expect to vote for her in November. Not to choose the lesser evil is to choose the greater evil.

[DanTex]

132. I agree there's a difference between working and selling out.

I don't agree that Hillary "sold out" by going on the speaking circuit. The charge being leveled was that because the organizations she spoke for included corporations then she was owned by "corporations." That, hopefully we can agree, is silly.

A lot of people do paid speeches, and people like Hillary get paid a lot for the simple fact that she's "Hillary f***ing Clinton." I brings prestige to an event, and makes the people attending feel important and so on.

[mcar]

44. +1000!

Well said, DanTex!

[riversedge]

30. Just like everyone--Hillary does the work and gets paid. Simple as that.

[virtualobserver]

34. It is just that simple....."that's what they offered"

[redstateblues]

61. still no poof of quid pro quo-still waiting

[virtualobserver]

63. doing nothing is what they are counting on

[notadmblnd]

82. Wasn't aware it was a contest.

I feel certain that Hillary also wins the contest of being responsible for more people dying than Susan Sarandon.

You must be so proud.

[MADem]

156. +1,000! And Sarandon owns far more ostentatious homes, as well.

That "Trump" comment pegged her as a shit-stirring Naderite.

I knew she was a bullshitter when she insisted that the reason she couldn't vote for HRC was her IWR vote.

Yet she--and her ex, who has moved on, now--had NO PROBLEM stumping for John "Your Cheatin' Heart" Edwards....who voted The EXACT Same Way.

Hmmm.

[polly7]

7. +1,000,000 nt.

[The Polack MSgt]

10. You say this, without a sarcasm tag

On a sight that needs protected groups for "Democrats" and "Barack Obama Group" so folks don't have to take abuse online.
On a site with Democratic in its domain name.

So save the pearl clutching and condescension. Thanks

[Armstead]

12. Yes Bill O'reilly could have posted this

[G_j]

17. yep nt

[beam me up scottie]

22. Nasty red baiting too. The hatred towards this woman is unhinged.

It's actually gotten really creepy at this point.

I feel like I just visited FreeRepublic.

[redstateblues]

80. She's a Naderite. That says it all. "not a dime's worth of difference"?

Thank her for Bush/Cheney if you see her at a Bernie rally

[beam me up scottie]

81. That excuses using right wing talking points? Oh and you spelled SCOTUS wrong.

History is hard.

[Cary]

49. And you have made a cottage industry of Clinton bashing

You're outing yourself. It's actually ok to be hypocritical. You're only human.

[virtualobserver]

56. I just don't want a President aligned with corporate America.....

so I continue telling the truth about Hillary. The truth.....it Berns.

[Cary]

74. It's kind of arrogant to claim to be the arbiter of "the truth."

I have one of those recidivist Catholic, Opus Dei type acquaintances. That's exactly what he does and he uses that posture to condescend and talk in circles. Because he has THE TRUTH, which is, in his words, "Christ's Church." Of course the current regime in "Christ's Church" is something he calls "Novus Order" so it isn't "Christ's Church."

Funny how that works, when you plant that particular flag.

How about balance? Now I know you consider me to be "conservative" because I believe in balance. But that's kind of like calling me "Novus Order."

I happen to be Jewish, by the way.

I will admit to being conservative, but never "conservative." That is, I'm cautious, prudent, making changes based on careful adherence to things like fact, logic, and tradition. I am not a radical, either left or right. I don't do cults of personality, ever. People are people and that means they are flawed, and never, ever the arbiter of "truth." Have certain people in this country acquired too much power? Absolutely. Concentration of wealth is a serious problem that we need to address, as a Party. And if one insists that theirs is the end all and be all, then they are not of the Party.

[notadmblnd]

91. "They are not of the Party".

That was exactly Sarandon's point.

Many of these Sander's supporters are not of the Democratic Party and won't vote for Hillary no matter what. They will either stay home or vote for someone else.

What HRC supporters can't understand about that is simply mind boggling.

[Cary]

98. I can't speak for HRC supporters, but I understand this perfectly

They will either stay home or vote for someone else, and they will whine no matter what because no one will ever live up to their "truth." I am not a newbie. These are the same emoprogs who railed against President Obama, and look where it got them. They are marginal and ever so they shall remain, because they are the extreme.

And too, we are better off without them. Look at what the extreme right has done to the Republican Party. The extreme left would surely ruin us with the exact same purity test.

But you see, I can afford to be generous because the extreme left is even less functional than the extreme right, and they don't have the thing that empowered the extreme right. That is, they don't have the money people.

[notadmblnd]

101. well I think the DNC and the rest of the conservadems, neo liberals, 3rd wayers

what ever one wants to call them- have done a fine job of destroying the Democratic party all by themselves. In fact their job is almost complete and soon no one will be able to differentiate between them and Republicans.

[Cary]

108. Spare me your histrionics

The Democratic Party is in great shape.

Pfeh.

[notadmblnd]

117. If you're a Republican, it is.

Have a nice day.

[Cary]

120. Right. If you're correct I will stand corrected.

But of this time and of this place I have no evidence that you are, and the record of emoprogs on this kind of schtick is not good.

And if you're wrong? Then what? Will you react to President Clinton the way you all reacted to President Obama?

Of course you will. It's what you do.

[notadmblnd]

126. I don't know who "you all" is- nor what reaction to Obama that you are speaking of

Pretty presumptive of you no? To pretend that you know anything about me- or any Sanders supporters for that matter.

But thanks for playing. I knew you were just pretending to be above the fray with the snark and personal insults. But true to form as a typical HRC supporter- you showed your true colors. I suppose you just couldn't help yourself.

[Cary]

133. Not presumptive at all

It is my experience here at DU and please don't be obtuse about it. Or be obtuse, I don't care because I have seen this movie and I know how it ends.

The bottom line is as I said. If your "revolution" is real and if your "revolution" is to be successful it will not happen because of Bernie Sanders. The government isn't that simple or that easy. Win or lose, you have a lot of work ahead of you. And you and your alleged youth, I don't have confidence in you.

That is my opinion. Keep making it about me though. That's going to get you far.

[notadmblnd]

149. Sanders supporters are no more simple minded fucks than Hillary supporters are.

So don't come here talking to me like you are some sort of insider who participates in the workings of the inner sanctum. If you truly were an insider, I doubt you'd be spending your days here attempting to one up those you perceive to be idiots with your snark and insults.

You made it personal with your insults, now you're going to play the victim and whine that you're being attacked. Typical HRC supporter.

[frylock]

128. What metrics are you using to make your assessment?

30% rate of membership? The loss of 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats?

[unapatriciated]

102. You are missing the point,

many of Sanders supporters are new to voting or have always been Indys. If the Clinton campaign chooses to marginalize them it will come at a very high cost. I personally think they are waiting until after the convention to woo them into the fold and that may be to late. HRC's campaign knows that the majority of the long term registered d's who now support Sanders will vote d in the GE.

If our party wants to stay relevant, we will have to grow our party by inclusion of new young voters. We will not achieve this by shutting their voices and concerns out. Suppression is never a good thing.

As far as your statement
"These are the same emoprogs who railed against President Obama, and look where it got them. They are marginal and ever so they shall remain, because they are the extreme."

I'm not a newbie either. There were many HRC's supporters who "railed" against Obama in 2008. We also had many on this board who "railed" against Clinton, making some pretty vile statements. Now they make vile statements about Sanders to show how much they support Clinton.

I have been involved since I was a teenager (1965) and do not consider many of Sanders policies to be extreme. Sorry you feel that many of us long term dems, are ruining the party. We have for many years fought for civil rights, workers rights, women's rights and will continue to do so. Our party platform has always been about what was good for our fellow man. Now we are no longer wanted and FDR's dreams and accomplishments are too extreme for the party we help build.

[Cary]

109. "They" marginalize "themselves"

This is nothing new. As I said I've seen it all before and it's a lot of noise.

[unapatriciated]

111. These are new voters we are talking about

not the left extreme, they have the green or socialist party they can retreat to. I have been around for a very long time and have never seen my party disenfranchise so many young voters. How do you expect our party to stay relevant if we ignore the young. We did not do that in the sixties and as a result our party became stronger.

You keep saying you have seen it happen before, in Obama's campaign. It was not done by the young, they supported Obama in overwhelming numbers. If our party ignores the young we will soon go the way of the repugs.

[Cary]

114. I have been around a long time

And I have never seen anything from the extreme left other than misery and grief. I don't believe in the extreme left even though I believe in pretty much the same policies as they believe in. Or maybe I don't believe in the extreme left because I do believe in pretty much the same policies, and because they are so utterly obnoxious about it for no good reason.

I have been attacked here every which way to Sunday so you get no sympathy from me. I don't believe it's going to be a problem. Younger voters will grow up.

[unapatriciated]

115. We are talking past each other.

You keep labeling the majority of young voters who are supporting Sanders as "extreme left". In the sixties young voters like myself received that same label. It didn't come from my fathers party, they had the same concerns we did. It came from conservatives who thought we were nothing but tree hugging hippies. Many of us were working raising families or going to school, that didn't stop us from becoming involved. We were welcomed by the Democrats not dismissed.


You are talking about dismissing an entire generation and that my friend is not good for our party.

I don't recall asking for sympathy from you and yes young voters will grow up but how they mature is our responsibility. I prefer we engage them not dismiss them.

If you consider my responses to your post as attacks than I see no point in continuing to engage you. You are not open but closed to any further conversation.

[Cary]

116. Perhaps, but you're using the old ploy of making me the issue

Call it an attack. Call it whatever. It's still a ploy. I have my opinion based on my observation. I'm absolutely entitled to it. No matter how subtle you are, no matter how you manage to do it, when you bring me into this personally you are changing the subject. And yes, if that's how you're going to proceed then yes, I'm not interested in what you have to say.

You may be correct, you may not be correct. Your opinion is nothing more than your opinion as my opinion is mine. You stand in no greater position than do I. But there is a difference because you have an agenda pertaining to a specific personality, and I don't. My agenda is to enact legislation that I believe will enhance the general welfare in the manner dictated by the preamble to the Constitution. Specifically I adhere to new neoclassical synthesis, salt water variety economic policies (think Paul Krugman). Specifically I am pro-choice and women's rights. I do want equality for all. I am against wars, generally. That covers a lot of it, I'm sure there is more but that is the general idea.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that some person is going to wave some kind of magic wand and then everything will be peaches and cream. I'm an attorney. I'm out there working with the various agencies and institutions that try to help the disabled. There is no magic. There is only one foot in front of the next, day after day after day.

No one person is going to make your dreams come true. The young will have their day, some day. Go off in a snit if you will. I will continue one foot in front of the next and someone yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't going to make me panic.

[unapatriciated]

134. I wasn't going to respond but

you are wrong to suggest that I believe in magic and fairytales. I would never presume who you are in real life so please don't presume about what I believe in or have done. Like I said I have been involved for a very long time but more specifically in health care reform. In the early 90's I told my story over and over again to those who would listen in the government and private sector. There were many of us of telling our stories and lobbying for health care reform. We managed to get some very important reforms put in place in regards to pre-existing conditions in California. We also got the "Fair Claims Practice Act" implemented. All of this took hard work from many families like mine who had a loved ones being denied health care. We had great private insurance, yet we endured continual denials or reviews of claims.

My agenda is not "pertaining to a specific personality" (whatever that is supposed to mean) nor do I believe one person will "make my dreams come true". I do however understand that it will take a lot of hard work to accomplish what I dare to dream for my children and grandchildren. I and many others were told you could not fight the Insurance Industry. Yet we did and achieved reforms in health care in California. I have never been adversed to hard work and sacrifice.

I'm not going off in a snit, just don't want to argue with someone who belittles me. Been there done that and it accomplishes nothing.

You have been very condescending and for the life of me I don't understand why. We have the same goals just disagree how to get there.

btw I know all about putting one foot in front of the other have been doing it for decades. Nor do I panic, couldn't afford to dealing with my son's illness for decades. Most of the lawyers I came in contact with during my fight against blue cross were never as dismisses as you have been to me. In fact I took my work on my son's case to William M. Shernoff when I was fighting my insurance company (blue cross). His office reviewed my file and were very impressed with not only my documentation but what I had accomplished in regards to payment of claims.

You can continue to ignore and demean those of us with different views and we will continue to fight for what we know is possible.

[Cary]

137. You weren't going to respond because you make this personal

I get it.

What you're doing here isn't a fight, nor a debate. Yes, I'm condescending. It's all about me. Keep it up. Keep on changing the subject.

[unapatriciated]

141. All I can do is chuckle

you think you can turn this on me (yep your a lawyer). You were the one who made this personal from the beginning of our conversation. You accused me of all sorts wants and needs that were soooo unattainable, of following a personality and magic. Telling me you were an attorney and what you do on a day to day basis in the real world. Insinuating that I have no knowledge how things are accomplished in the real world. When I reply with what and who I am, you accuse me of making it personal and changing the subject.

You really are toooo funny.


btw I wasn't debating, I was trying to have a conversation by explaining my position and how I got there.

[Cary]

143. "yep your a lawyer"

"You were the one..."

"You accused ..."

" Telling me you were an attorney..."

"You really are toooo funny."

Every sentence is changing the subject to me, personally. Every single one, and you own nothing. You take no personal responsibility at all. This is your action, not mine. I didn't make you resort to this ploy. You did it.

This is all I get from the radical left and it's exactly what I get if I ever make the mistake of trying to talk to a Rand Paul cultist or a LaRouchie.

You're going nowhere. Your "revolution" is going nowhere, youth or no youth. You have no discipline and no idea how to get from here to where you think you want to go. Behaving like this isn't going to work, ever. It actually makes you marginal. I'm thoroughly disgusted. Most of us are.

[unapatriciated]

144. oh shit

you made me belly laugh with this one. Now this little 64 year old lady is a radical leftist, who has no discipline. Like I said you are the one making this personal, I'm only responding to your attacks.

This radical leftist 64 year old woman had enough discipline to be part of passing major health care reform in California in the 90's. It would be decades before we enjoyed the same reforms nationwide. I took care of a very sick child while working two jobs for years, yet I have no discipline. You can continue to believe I'm marginal and be thoroughly disgusted with me and I will continue to fight for my fellow man.


btw your list needs context to fill it out. Those are all responses to your attacks on me personally. But hey we don't want to get personal here do we.


damn still laughing so hard forgot to spell check.

[Cary]

145. Whatever

It's not like I ever expected you to sing.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. The pig never sings; the pig just ends up getting mad.

And the "I know you are but what am I" is to be expected too. So typical. So predictable.

[unapatriciated]

146. wow oh wow

oh well you may be right about singing, but that pig thing and getting mad is just so not me.

Like I said in earlier post I do have discipline and your little insults will have no affect on me.

[synergie]

123. Are you not also insulting the young voters supporting Clinton with the daily vollies of abuse,

name calling and other harassment? You seem to forget that no demographic is an absolute block and that young people, particularly women are seeing and hearing what the predominantly male and pale voices are saying about us, and the issue that directly affect not only our daily lives, but our health and basic human rights as well. Stop dismissing us because you prefer to focus on certain portions of the demographics and not the whole picture. Also, stop condescending to us about how pure and self righteous your fight against words you do not understand is, and how it trumps our voices and our existence.

Our generation does not enjoy what you are doing, nor will we tolerate it.

[Cary]

136. Yes, but I don't buy his or her allegations

Do you?

I don't think it's generational at all.

[synergie]

150. It's absolutely not generational.

[unapatriciated]

138. I have never said anything close to what you claim.

In fact I think we should respect and discuss what we have in common as well as our differences.
The poster I was engaging with wanted to do just the opposite by writing them off.

[synergie]

151. Actually, you're the one writing us off, along with the BS camp and the media which

ignore the simple fact that our generation is not made up of high school kids and freshman and sophomores in college. They might be rallying and partying up a storm at various locations, but those 8 million votes she's getting is coming from our generation as well. Those of us out in the workforce, in professional school, residencies, who are parents and who have them, and who are not naive or foolish enough to buy into the Bernie hype.

When you lump us all together, you are the one writing us off. The poster you were engaging was doing no such thing, that was all you.

Stop with this let's only listen the idiots cheering at sparrows and ignoring policy. You want to listen to us, and not write off a generation? Actually pay attention to what we're saying.

You're threatening our jobs, our livelihoods, our children's futures, our parents' retirements, the general safety of the world. Those of us who are immigrants and 2nd gen, do not want someone in charge who has no idea of foreign policy, who says dumb things about the workers our economy needs, that our schools fail to produce in sufficient numbers.

We don't buy this "free college" nonsense, because we've got loans, some of us have school still ahead of us and you're talking about cutting our training programs, our healthcare and our future jobs in healthcare. We're not stupid, we're not high, we're not drunk, we're not ignorant, and we're voting in sufficient numbers as to tell you that we're not buying these rants about "teh establishment" from an entrenched member of it.

We'd love the respect and the opportunity to discuss, but we're being called nasty names by frat-bros supporting the dude because they can't handle voting for "mom" who actually knows stuff.

The generation is not a bunch of school kids whose pre-college prep didn't teach them history, math or how to think critically, we're also college educated adults who know enough to look at actual policies, and are well aware of which ones are reality based and which are not even thought through.

You want to engage with our generation? Please pay attention to what we're actually saying. It's not just about Citizens United for us, it's about a SCOTUS that will be deciding things that affect us, like ROE which is on the docket! Like access to contraception, affordable health insurance, not slogans like "medicare for all", but totally not like any medicare that's there now, which isn't even enough to cover the needs of those on it!

Stop lumping us in with those idiots who are busy repeating right wing smears because they don't know their origin.

There is a reason that HRC is winning right now and it's because our generation is not fooled by silly old actresses (or younger ones for that matter), we like her policies and we see through Bernies, and we know very well just what the three idiots on the other side have planned and which candidate they've been terrified of for years.

[unapatriciated]

155. Where do I start.

I don't know how to respond, even tho I support Sanders and his policies we might have more in common than you think. I do not write off any one who cares about their fellow man. I will admit that health care access, equal rights and women's rights are my priorities (they are personal for me). I have been fighting for health care reform since the early 90's. In California we managed to achieve major reforms (it would take decades before we saw the same reforms nation wide) regarding pre existing conditions or how claims are processed (The Fair Claims Practice Act).

All I'm trying to say is no matter who takes the primary we will need everyone who cares about those priorities I mention above. We may differ on the how but never the why. We should not disenfranchise any one who can help us in keeping the "why" possible so that we can solve the "how" together.

[virtualobserver]

93. Taking money hand over fist from the "lucky" recipients of the concentration of wealth....

does not lead to the party addressing the problem....it leads in the opposite direction.
It leads to Debbie Wasserman Schultz supporting payday lenders, who then get luckier.

To borrow from the Declaration of Independence, I hold that this truth is self-evident.

People are influenced by their peers, and when your peers and friends are your wealthy donors or other politicians, who like you have taken the same path, it is hard to see things through a different lens. Add ambition to the mix and it makes it even harder to see straight.

You speak of balance, but our current state is one of extreme imbalance, as imbalanced as it was in the late 1920's. That balance will be restored, it is just a question of how and when.

[joshcryer]

52. Oh my fuck.

Clinton did speeches and wrote a fucking book, big fucking deal. Really, big fucking deal. The Clinton's get big bucks talking, people want to hear what they have to say, big fucking deal.

[virtualobserver]

57. $150 million between Bill and Hillary is a BFD.....I couldn't agree more.

[roguevalley]

139. pathetic dumping on susan for her opinions. At least she isn't

going to be indicted any time soon.

[840high]

153. Well put. Thank you.

[Logical]

2. Dan being dan as usual. Nt

[jmg257]

3. Wait - did I miss something?? Is Susan Sarandon running for office??

Hmmm...Wonder who is investigating HER email?

[DanTex]

9. She became the face of Trump enablers on the privileged far left with her inane comments on MSNBC.

[unapatriciated]

104. So many who miss the point of what she said

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=1609538

[cyberswede]

5. I think it looks like fun. If you have a half dozen people, $99 doesn't seem too bad.

I've paid more to book various venues for kid birthday parties.

That said, I already have a ping pong table in my basement, the ceiling of which looks almost exactly like the one above.

[TheBlackAdder]

8. Interesting, someone who lives with and profits from the 1%, and seems to know how they are.

.


I've been in some of those nightclubs in NYC, the ones down in the Financial District.

It's a completely different world. A pure Libertarian, dog eat dog type of mentality exists.


Some movies try to tap into that essence, but only come close.


.

[DemonGoddess]

14. bwahahahaha

$99 to pay ping pong??? and people PAY this???

[G_j]

21. far left fringe

Me thinks you've been plagiarizing Rush and Bill-O.

[DanTex]

23. A lot of Bernie or Busters are right-wingers trolling, but Susan is definitely left-wing fringe.

She's the real deal.

[G_j]

124. the way you lump "far" left and right together

is intellectually dishonest, but you know that. That kind of dishonesty destroys credibility.

[DanTex]

125. It's called the "horseshoe theory" -- if you get far enough on either side, they become similar.

As far as Bernie-or-Bust, there's not doubt that some people pushing it are actual right-wingers who are trying to help the GOP get elected, and others are just naive lefties who buy into the Leninist crisis theory that Susan Sarandon was pushing. And it's usually not possible to tell them apart. Sometimes right-wingers out themselves, but it's not particularly difficult to impersonate a lefty Bernie-or-Buster (just say "corporatist" a lot), so who knows which is which.

[G_j]

127. bullshit

& not worth a response.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. This 'attack the home of wealthy liberals' routine is the 'Al Gore's House' attack honed by those

right wing bashers. It's the same nasty tactic, and it's all over DU.

[mcar]

48. As are the attacks on George Clooney for holding a Democratic fundraiser

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Yeah, I don't do that. So what's your point?

One of Clooney's business partners is an old associate of mine. He's certainly rich as hell, but like Susan he earned it. I fully remember George when he was working (not enough) for a living. I remember George prior to his wealth.


You know, George had a fundraiser for Obama in 2012 that was key to Obama making his marriage equality 'evolution' a few days later. I am grateful to George for the set and setting.

It's the Hillary folks who seem angry that Susan has dough. They are house shaming her like Rush did to Al Gore.

[hobbit709]

25. You just have to keep agitating that metabolic byproducts container don't you?

[Bluenorthwest]

28. This trope is Dixie Chicks meets Al Gore's House....

Gore Defends Mansion's Power Consumption
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gore-defends-mansions-power-consumption/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

Flashback: The Dixie Chicks Are Ashamed of the President
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/flashback-the-dixie-chicks-are-ashamed-of-the-president-again-20140807


These Right Wing Rove Tropes are tattered and torn old things.....

[DanTex]

31. I don't recall either of them talking about how great it would be for Trump to become president

in order for things to "really explode". Trying to tie Sarandon to the Dixie Chicks is a gross insult to the Dixie Chicks.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Of course Sarandon did not say that either, you did. Your attack tactic is 'Dixie Chicks + Al Gore's

House'. It's right wing style liberal bashing. You characterize what she said then gnaw at it. Just like Al never said he invented the internet. It's transparent and it is in fact the exact brands of attack launched by others on the right against Al for having a big house and Natalie for speaking her mind.

[DanTex]

42. Yes, she did. And the Dixie Chicks comparison is absurd, because I'm not an industry group

leading boycotts in an attempt to ruin her career because she criticized a Republican.

I'm a citizen pointing out the immense privilege of a woman who claims to be progressive and then talks about how, gee, maybe it would be good for Trump to make things "really explode" and bring about "the revolution". People who aren't shielded from the "explosion" like Sarandon don't have the luxury of thinking like that.

And, yes, when public figures say dumb things, they should be called out. Even Republicans who endorse Trump experience fallout. Susan Sarandon shouldn't get a free pass.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. No she didn't. If she did, you would quote her instead of characterizing. Again here you bleat but

fail to cite the quote you are all worked up about. That's because it does not exist. If it did you would quote her. Instead you carry on attacking her for saying what you claim she said. Al Gore never said he invented the internet. Citizen Limbaugh said that.

If she'd said that, you could quote that, but she didn't so you can't. So you will construct more wall of words.

The ironic part DanTex is that in 2008 you were relentless in your characterizations and smearing of Hillary Clinton. You did to her the exact same thing you are now doing to Susan and to Bernie. You were a Hillary Hater. Now, like all reformed addicts, you lash out at others who say they don't care for Hillary, just as you used to say. You pretend that you were never a Hillary critic, never bashed her and never said the opposite of what you now say. It's a farce, a badly produced farce at that.


No quote, that's because there is not one. That means your assertion is unsupported bullshit.

[DanTex]

68. LOL. "Reformed addict". I've had a lot of personal attacks by Bernie or Busters, but that's a new

one. And no, I never pretended I was not a Hillary critic. In fact, the PUMA stuff that was going on in 2008 was just as idiotic as the Bernie or Bust stuff this time around.

I have no patience for anyone who helps get the GOP get elected, and particularly not for people doing it while pretending to be progressives.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. But Danny, you fully smeared Hillary in 08 primaries. Was that you asssiting the GOP and pretending

to be progressive? You were not a critic, you were a full time denigration machine, you did to her then what you do to Bernie now. Same exact thing. You bashed at her early, mid season and later. You claimed to be a good judge of her bad character, claimed she lied, cheated and sought only money and power.

When I see people allow behaviors to themselves that they condemn in others, I think that's a hugely self serving person who simply can't be trusted to communicate honestly. Double Standards, contradictory positions, and no rules for Dan while others get parsed and grilled over nonsense. Because as an American, they made money.

You spent 08 bashing Hillary because that's what you wanted to do. Now you bash Bernie because that's what you want to do. That's fine, but do not dress up your self indulgence and try to pass it off as principle and service to the Party and do not attempt to claim others do not have rights equal to your own to speak our minds.

I am a third generation Democrat with Kennedy cousins. To me, you sound like a Republican, you come to DU to 'support' a candidate but what you really do is just bash a candidate. in 08 it was Hillary you trash talked and denigrated. Now it's Bernie. I see no support or advocacy, just trash talk and denigration of Democrats. Since I have been on DU, you have severely bashed both of our current candidates as dishonest and self motivated. Both of them, we have no candidate you have not taken a stand against one after the other. What should be made of that?
And this cycle you have expanded into attacking private citizens you take issue with. To me that is just unacceptable.

[DanTex]

142. Danny, huh? Is that meant to be belittling? A "denigration machine" perhaps?

Call it a "smear" if you want, but when Hillary was dragging on the primary to the possible detriment of the nominee, who by than was certain to be Obama, yes I voiced my discontent. And yeah, I was for Obama from the start in 2008, and I didn't like Hillary, though it wasn't until later in the campaign when she was trying to count FL and MI or win via supers that she really crossed the line. But she won my respect over the last 8 years. Shocking, I know, I'm sure you never change your opinion about anything.

Also, when PUMAs were threatening to vote McCain, I again voiced discontent. I actually like Bernie (though I certainly don't think his numbers add up), but the Bernie or Bust (i.e. "Let Trump Win&quot people are idiots who I respect not much more than actual Trump supporters.

You see, the pattern with me is pretty simple. I have little patience for people who carry water for the GOP, or otherwise advocate positions that would harm the nation and push us further right. I actually got fed up with the loony left well before this primary. Before there was Hillary-bashing there was Obama-bashing, and sometime around the "POS used car salesman" is when I realized that they had lost their marbles. And, truth be told, I have my doubts about how many of the people who joined DU in the last month for the sole purpose of advocating indirectly for Trump are actually Democrats or progressives of any kind.

BTW if you were the least bit concerned about "bashing", you'd be more credible if you would call out the Hillary bashing here from time to time. And like I said, the reaction from outside the Bernie bubble to Sarandon's comments should tell you a lot of just how crazy what she said was. It's not a game, Trump would have real negative consequences for millions of people, even toying with the idea that it might actually be good because it would "explode things" and bring the revolution on is indefensible.

[beam me up scottie]

71. "Now, like all reformed addicts, you lash out at others who say they don't care for Hillary"

[frylock]

79. Now, like all reformed addicts, you lash out at others who say they don't care for Hillary.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Where is the quote? You are what you bleat.

You claimed over and over that you are not bashing but quoting. But you provide no quote. Because there is no such quote.

[DanTex]

67. Right here.

Sarandon: I think Bernie would probably encourage people, because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing. But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to (vote for Hillary).’”
Hayes: How about you personally?
Sarandon: I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens
Hayes: Really?
Sarandon: Really,
Hayes: You know I cannot believe that as you're watching Donald Trump---
Sarandon: Well, you know some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.
Hayes: Oh, you're saying the Leninist model of "heighten the contradictions"
Sarandon: Yeah, yeah, some people feel that.
Hayes: Don't you think that's dangerous?
Sarandon: It’s dangerous to that what's going on now [is dangerous].
etc.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Your claim was that she said 'how great it would be for Trump to become President'. She said no such

thing.

You claimed she said ' how great it would be for Trump to become president'.

What she said is that if he got elected things would explode.
Al Gore said he invented the internet type bullshittery. Same tired old tactic.

[DanTex]

85. She hid it behind the old "some people say" but, yes, she did say that Trump

could make "things explode" and thereby bring about the revolution, which in her view would be a good thing. And in fact this was the only rationale that she gave when defending her decision to possibly not vote Clinton over Trump.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. What you claimed she said she did not say. What she said was something else entirely.

Dan you come here to convict a person for the words they spoke but you refuse to even use their own words, you want to indict her based on your revision and alteration of what she said. That's McCarthyist bullshit.

You presented false claims about what she said. Extremely false. You seem to think you are allowed to speak for her while also being her judge and her jury.

I find your tactics to be nasty and very dishonest. That's not about Hillary, because you subjected her to the same abusive rhetoric in 2008. My criticisms here are about YOU.

Also, you referred to me as a 'Bernie or Buster'. You made that up out of whole cloth. You lie. If Hillary finagles the nomination, I will vote for her and hold this Party accountable for making me vote for a person who praises the Reagans on AIDS. I will hold her supporters very directly responsible. They know what she said, they don't care. Fuck them for that.

[DanTex]

96. I paraphrased her accurately, and added slight emphasis.

And the backlash from the real world, as well as Chris Hayes's reaction, tells you just how outrageous what she said was. No, she didn't say "great", but she most certainly implied that it would be good if Trump caused things to "really explode" to bring on "the revolution." And even when Chris Hayes commented that it was the "Leninist model" of "heightening the contradictions" she responded by saying yeah.

This is sheer lunacy. The "contradictions" that Lenin wanted to "heighten" involved human misery. And she agreed with it. Agreed with the premise that it is a good thing for people (other people, of course, not her) to suffer in the hope that it will make them angry enough to bring about a revolution that you are hoping for.

Please, tell me what you think of that philosophy. I can't wait to hear it. Because I hope that you would agree that it is morally grotesque for anyone to even entertain the idea that increasing the misery of (other) people for the sake of some utopian revolution.

I get that you have taken some peculiar interest in me personally, but as I've explained to you already, yes, I was strongly against Hillary, particularly towards the end of the 2008 where she couldn't possibly win and was stretching the campaign out pointlessly and divisively. And I was just as opposed to the PUMA movement of 2008 as with the Bernie or Bust movement of this year. Anyone who claims to be a progressive and then advocates for things that can have no possible outcome but to increase the power of the GOP is not someone that I will have kind things to say about.

Glad to hear you're not a Bernie or Buster, I was mistaken, and I take that back.

[bullwinkle428]

97. THANK YOU for saving me the time of doing an "Al Gore's house" rant.

and K&R for this post.

[CalvinballPro]

36. Hey, Tad Devine can't be the only person to cash in on the Sanders campaign. Here come the leeches!

Bernie's target audience has been revealed as gullible rubes desperate to lose their money. Of course it's just going to attract more con artists than the one at the head of the campaign.

[SidDithers]

38. DU rec for all kinds of reasons...nt

Sid

[JoePhilly]

105. My rec ...

... is in recognition of how so many don't realize Bernie supporters posts OPs like this to attack Hillary all the time.

[Gothmog]

40. Looks like a great place for a revolution

[Tanuki]

46. Reminds me of the lady who liked to pretend she was a milkmaid sometimes, just one of the 99%.

She even built her own little milkmaid village. The revolution didn't go so well for her.

[blackspade]

51. Fucking pathetic.

Project much?

[beam me up scottie]

55. ...

[hobbit709]

69. That dead horse has been beaten so much there's just disintegrating pulp left on the ground.

[berni_mccoy]

59. So DanTex is actually David Brock. Explains a lot.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. No, Brock actually has some game.

nt

[Botany]

60. The prices are much less for "walk ins"

OFF-PEAK: $19 PER HALF HR // $29 PER HOUR
PEAK: $29 PER HALF HR // $49 PER HOUR
3 DAYS ADVANCED RESERVATION: $79 PER HOUR
5 DAYS ADVANCED RESERVATION: $99 PER HOUR

[JackRiddler]

73. Looks nice! Thanks for pointing it out, I'll be sure to visit soon.

[LanternWaste]

75. No doubt, this is of great concern to anyone who lacks mental discipline

No doubt, this is of great concern to anyone who lacks mental discipline, and needs to pretend this is as important as policy...

Or it could simply be a trendy shade of jealousy. Could be a lot of things... but what it ain't, is relevant.

[frylock]

76. ..

[RandySF]

77. Perfect spot from which to wait for the revolution

While a President Cruz packs the SCOTUS with Right wing Liberty University Law School radicals, or Trunps triggers attacks on immigrants and minorities by white supremacists. Berie or Bust!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Here are links to other right wing smears of liberal pesons for having an nice house or some money:

The Right Attacks Barbra's house:

Another environmental fraud is Barbara Streisand who harps about a “Global Warming Emergency” as she spends $22,000 a year watering her lawn and gardens, requests 120 bath-size towels upon arrival at production offices, and uses thirteen, 53-foot semi trailers at her concerts.
http://humanevents.com/2012/03/31/the-top-10-hollywood-hypocrites/

Al Gore's CA house:
In his award-winning (obsolete) PowerPoint slide presentation movie, Gore calls on people to conserve energy and to reduce CO2 emissions by using less electricity at home. BUT, Gore pays 20 times more for electricity and gas than an average American homeowner does! Is this the role-model example that his political patrons should be enthusiastically following? USA has many greedy fossil-fuel profiteers who do not emit as much CO2 in their homes and personal travels as Al Gore does.
https://conservativecritic.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/famous-environmental-hypocrites-and-their-carbon-indulgences-all-here-for-you-to-see-in-broad-daylight-3-2/


Scuzzy Right Wing sites. They do this sort of thing all the time. The sort of thing the OP is doing.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Despicable, I remember the Al Gore smears.

And now Susan is their target and look who's applauding.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. DanTex in 2008 attacked Hillary exactly as he now attacks Bernie. Not one Democratic candidate

in our current election has been spared the denigration and trash talking of DanTex. He did it to Hillary, now to Bernie, he does it to various uppity liberals. Who else does those things? Many, many right wing pundits.

It is interesting on DU that people pick up a prop, a candidate, and use that candidate as shield while they bash endlessly at other candidates and at Democratic voters. The choice of props does not matter to them 'I'll be for Hillary this year, against her the next whatever allows me to trash talk the most Democrats with the most safety'.

That's why it does matter that so many here who are devoted to Hillary now were insanely against her in 08. They are not really for her, they were not really against her. She's a sort of rhetorical duck blind they use 'See, I'm for Hillary, so when I say all this right wing shit it's not because I'm right wing!!!' For her, against her but always against many Democrats and against many DUers. Always. That really does tell us much.

[QC]

99. Don't forget "MICHAEL MOORE LIVES IN A REAL BIG FANCY HOUSE!!1!!!!!"

That right wing classic was very popular around here when Moore made some mild criticisms of some of Obama's actions and policies.

[DanTex]

100. Not to mention the right-wingers on DU constantly smearing Hillary for her wealth.

But I must have missed you complaining about that. Now why would that be?

And the difference is, none of those people, to my knowledge talked about how good it would be if Trump got elected and caused things to "really explode" and bring on the revolution. If someone is talking about "explosions" it is entirely relevant to point out that they live in a bubble of privilege and won't be the ones doing the suffering when that explosion comes.

[revbones]

89. I think you left out the "Some people think..." part of that quote.

Disingenuous to say the least...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. After the game they could swing by Hillary's crib for Frito's & Beer.

[jmg257]

95. Seems like a great place. Been to a Brewery/Pub in upstate NY

that is SOMEWHAT similar.. http://www.bacchusnewpaltz.com/

Baachus is in a small blue-collar college town, and they charge $5 an hour per person for the sports.

"Opened in November 2005, when the two buildings were joined, Bacchus Billiards is a friendly, family oriented space with 7 full size and 2 bar size pool tables, ping pong, foosball, darts, video, pinball, plus great food, drinks, and service. Parties are welcome!"
Rates
Before 5pm: $4 per person/hr
After 5pm: $5 per person/hr


For Manhattan, Spin prices don't seem too unreasonable. $20-$50 an hour for a group isn't bad at all. Hopefully the food is better.

Spin: "BY COMBINING AN UNUSUAL MIXTURE OF SPORT, DESIGN AND ENTERTAINMENT, SPiN NEW YORK HAS CREATED A UNIQUE DAY AND NIGHTTIME VENUE WITH 17 PING-PONG COURTS, A FULL BAR, RESTAURANT, PRO-SHOP AND PRIVATE VIP ROOM"
OFF-PEAK: $19 PER HALF HR // $29 PER HOUR
PEAK: $29 PER HALF HR // $49 PER HOUR
3 DAYS ADVANCED RESERVATION: $79 PER HOUR
5 DAYS ADVANCED RESERVATION: $99 PER HOUR

Hmmm - Spin also has this, which is nice:

GIVING BACK: OUR MANDATE
THE NUMBER OF UNDERPRIVILEGED AND MARGINALIZED YOUTH LIVING IN URBAN CENTERS IS INCREASING AT AN ALARMING RATE. SPiN IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO SUPPORT THIS SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION IN MANY WAYS, NAMELY THROUGH CHARITABLE EVENTS, FINANCIAL DONATIONS, TABLE DONATIONS, PROGRAMMING, MENTORING, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE INTO THE GAME OF PING-PONG.

WE HAVE DONATED OVER 60 PING-PONG TABLES TO YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS IN NEW YORK, TORONTO AND LOS ANGELES, AND ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH SEVERAL YOUTH-ORIENTED PARTNERS TO CONTINUE PUSHING THIS MANDATE FORWARD. OUR HOPE IS THAT, BY SPREADING THE JOY OF PING-PONG WE CAN AFFECT POSITIVE CHANGE TO THOSE WHO ARE LESS FORTUNATE.

WE FIRMLY BELIEVE IN SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITIES WE ARE A PART OF IN WAYS THAT PROVIDE TANGIBLE IMPACTS BOTH PHYSICALLY & MENTALLY AND OF COURSE FINANCIALLY. IF YOU’D LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR PROGRAMS OR TO GET INVOLVED, DON’T HESITATE TO DROP US A LINE USING THE FORM BELOW.

[melman]

103. THIS IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS

[Prism]

106. I kinda want to go there

That looks like a good time, and I love the space. $99 for ping pong at a nice bar? Sounds like a fun night out to me. I'd pass on the $500 vodka, though. Totally car bar that shit.

Wait. You're trying to shame her in some way.

Oh, no. Pointless.

And I like how you try to tie together the place's location with Credit Suisse and Rupert Murdoch.

Just LOL, man.

If only you got as worked up about anti-semitism as you do about a celebrity's opinion. What a world we could live in.

[beedle]

107. Yeah, I'm sure

Susan is only supporting Bernie so he will lower her taxes when he is elected president?

Or maybe hanging with Bernie will impress all those Credit Suisse CEOs to drop by?

Is there an actual point to this thread other than to show that "Dan" is more properly spelled "B-i-l-l"

[Ken Burch]

110. Give it a rest. It's enough that she wants to see her taxes raised sharply. n/t.

[DanTex]

113. Actually, Trump would lower her taxes dramatically. Maybe that's another reason why she's

so keen on seeing him get elected. She gets a tax break, and gets to watch things "explode".

[melman]

112. So

Susan Sarandon is part-owner of a business that is somewhat near where Rupert Murdoch used to live. That must mean she is guilty of...something.

This is just unbearably stupid. Good luck finding something in today's Manhattan that isn't a block away from a billionaire's apartment. That doesn't mean it's in some exclusive district. It's on friggin' 23rd Street FFS.

[workinclasszero]

118. “Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately,” she replied."

How did that work out with Nader?

8 years of Bush republican hell for america and the world and now Sarandon wants to doubledown with 8 years of Trump/Cruz insanity?!

Of course it won't hurt her rich 1%er life one tiny bit!

[riversedge]

140. those millennials seems to have cash to burn in the

upper class district

[George II]

119. Looks like a business owned by a member of the 1%.

[rusty fender]

121. LOLOLOL!

[BainsBane]

122. Of course

I'm gonna hazard a guess that the average Bernie supporter doesn't pass the screening for membership in the club. But hey, I'm open to being proved wrong, if people want to go try to have a beer there and report back.

[melman]

135. This is a normal place where anyone can go

There is no screening.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/spin-new-york-2

[MisterP]

147. silly Susie, everyone knows cattle futures and Osprey Global is where you make the bucks

this article's funnier anyway http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-sarandon-ping-pong-huppke-20160302-story.html

[DanTex]

148. Cattle futures. LOL.

[redstateblues]

152. You can always tell when DanTex hits a nerve with the "revolutionaries"

their comments always devolve into personal attacks-never fails

[melman]

158. That's the idea

It's called trolling.

[unapatriciated]

159. nothing like those personal attacks

unless you hide it in an old saying than it't just a ok and I'm just too stupid to understand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=1611477

[Cha]

154. Her and her stupid path to the "revolution".. bernie or bust.. what a spokes person for BS.

[cosmicone]

157. Susan Sarandon is a phony

and probably a closet republican sent to divide the progressives.