You know what's Bullshit!^TM?

Having a corporate sponsor for a vlog.

So his argument is that governmental oversight in order to reduce costs and unfair practices should not take place because the same governmental control can be exploited by a later Presidency. Am I correct on this?

Can we get the light to work on this straw man? Does trying to solve - or help to solve - a problem only get shadowed by future administrations? Should we not even try anymore because what we do today can be turned on its arse decades from now? I'm not saying that we shouldn't be cautious but I'm not sold on the sky-will-fall mentality.

Stating that what money the government does take in will then be used for wars and "killing people." Really??? I mean, c'mon now. Even if there isn't any money left in the budget, would that stop money being allocated for a war?

Me thinks the Libertarians are more dreamy-eyed optimists - as if we can all take care of ourselves without any government help, thank you. This is exactly what corporations want voters to think.

This is more of a political drunk dial than an actual argument. *long

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by dystopianfuturetoday.

Right...because it's the "people" that benefit the most from overspending as it is and not the corporations.
>> ^doremifa:

Me thinks the Libertarians are more dreamy-eyed optimists - as if we can all take care of ourselves without any government help, thank you. This is exactly what corporations want voters to think.

I think you are all missing the point. This argument is more about expansion of Executive Branch powers more than it is about liberal spending.

This VBlog could have been much shorter in that he could have said, "I think the expansion of the executive branch's powers with this presidency and the previous fiasco is a negative situation for the people of the United States."

Moving this video to Grimm's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter Grimm.

Penn could have stated all this more concisely, and honestly. Rambling on as long as he does just makes him look drunk, either literally or with the sound of his own voice.

According to his own version of Libertarian ideals the problem with Obama as President, is that despite everything else, that still means he is the President. Apparently an existential sin, in and of itself.

Apparently he believes that Douglas Adams' half-joking quote has no humour in it at all:
"Anyone capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

*nsfw

The camera cuts were stupid and annoying.

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by xxovercastxx.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

I normally like Penn, but this argument is total bullshit. How on earth do you change ANYTHING about the way your country is run if you assume the worst will come to pass? Oh right, thats like, the basis of conservatism. You know what, perhaps when republicans stop trying to drag the country back into the 50s with every term the democrats can stop trying to leap ahead 50 years and you'd have a more balanced country overall.

Honestly Penn, I expected better. And yes, that Douglas Adams quote is perfect.