siftbot says...

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, November 1st, 2010 8:38am PDT - doublepromote requested by Stingray.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

A fair representation, I suppose, of the 20% of the voting public that is still vainly clinging to the last, threadbare tatters of the fantasy they had in 2008 that everything was all the Republicans fault. Fact is Obama had 2 years of supermajorities in the house & senate and he did everything he wanted. The far left just can't accept that fact that what Obama wanted has driven up debt, reduced freedom, stifled business, created massive unemployment, left the U.S. foreign policy feebly twisting in the wind, and demonstrably shown the entire left wing economic & political platform to be a complete and utter failure. Also the fact is that the economic issues that happened under Bush were the result of him pursuing a LEFT leaning domestic spending policy. No - debt was not caused by War/Tax cuts. It was caused by profligate government spending at a time when they should have been cutting.

Jinx says...

What does it say about democracy when one party runs on the fact they aren't the opposition. Maybe the Democrats should outright call themselves the "not-republican party".

Psychologic says...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Also the fact is that the economic issues that happened under Bush were the result of him pursuing a LEFT leaning domestic spending policy.


Maybe the economic problems happened because Bush's policies weren't left enough. It's amazing how many ways one can connect the same set of dots. =)

smooman says...

if you say republican enough, it loses all meaning.........which is true for democrat, liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, and pretty much any other political label we've been bombarded with. I wont downvote (and not because i dont have the privilege) but i cant bring myself to upvote either

propaganda is propaganda no matter what color you paint it

qualm says...

Qualm's Andy Rooney Voice This election season i feel for the good people of the United States who are now faced with choosing between the Democrats - who are mostly corrupt and cynical, and the Republicans - who are mostly corrupt and sinister. Admittedly, i can be cynical at times, so if i could vote i suppose i'd have to vote for Starbucks. Never for Halliburton.

***

"The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. " -- Noam Chomsky

*


It really is astonishing how polarized the United States has become.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

True - the GOP has certainly not won any points lately. I'll be very interested to see how the establishment GOP reacts to all these Tea Party winners come Wednesday. The Tea Party is all about fiscal responsibility, budget balance, and reducing government. If the freshman of the 2010 congress go there and just keep the Big Gummint bandwagon rolling then there's going to be a lot of very angry consituents.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

Tymbrwulf says...

The shot at Katrina felt a little unnecessary. I don't think either party would have been ready for that sort of disaster. They have enough financial/economic disasters as it is to not need to bring up natural ones.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans

Preposterous. Fiscal responsiblity is very simple and very specific. Actual reductions in Federal spending as opposed to perpetual YoY baseline budget increases. Cuts in spending as opposed to reallocating percentages while keeping overall expenditures up. Mandatory limits on federal spending based on a percentage of GDP. Reduction or elimination of programs that are insolvent. Requirement that budgets remain in the black, with hard limits on spending tied to a 0% deficit floor. Complete elimination of federal dollars for state projects. Complete elimination of specifically allocated taxes (like SS) being used as slush for general funds. Complete removal of federally funded loans, with all such programs being remanded to the states where they can be voted in referendum.

I could keep going for days here, but "fiscal responsibility" is a very specific thing in the minds of Tea partiers. It means the reduction of federal government in size, scope, and spending to the point that the budget is actually solvent in real terms - not just a bunch of dreams held together with lies and spit.

xxovercastxx says...

I remember who was in power at the state and local level and how they blocked or bungled relief efforts.

Democrats: The thinnest kids at fat camp.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

The shot at Katrina felt a little unnecessary. I don't think either party would have been ready for that sort of disaster. They have enough financial/economic disasters as it is to not need to bring up natural ones.

kymbos says...

If Tea Partiers want less spending, I can guarantee they will be disappointed. Every Government is the highest spending until the next one. The biggest lie the Republicans have got over the ignorant is that they're the party of small government.

rottenseed says...

bleh...so a hired marketing company can make an ad to appeal to a certain group of people. What's new? You think they're enlightening us or just trying to sell us their product. *propaganda

PoweredBySoy says...

I remember when people looked at the candidates themselves, the issues they stand for, and why, and voted based on facts instead of getting all worked up by hyper-partisan propaganda such as this, left or right.

Actually, never mind, I don't remember that.

bobknight33 says...

I remember.

I remember the levees that broke during Katrina was the fault of the state for not spending the necessary money. I remember that that state is a Democrat controlled state for the last 30 or so years. I remember school buses sitting still and not evacuating the population. I remember that the Democratic mayor made that decision.

I remember the Bush's deficit spending. You can thank Bush II for turning a lot of people into Independents.

I remember Obama 18 months of deficit spending being nearly as much as Bushes last 8 years. I remember.


You can Thank Obama for turning Bushes Independents solidifying into the Tea Party

I'll remember to thank Obama for doing such a great job when the American people thumb their noses at the Democrat party during tomorrows vote.



.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

If Tea Partiers want less spending, I can guarantee they will be disappointed. Every Government is the highest spending until the next one. The biggest lie the Republicans have got over the ignorant is that they're the party of small government.

This in entirely possible. The Tea Party will doubtless be watching the GOP very very carefully. These guys aren't your run-of-the-mill bunch you can swing with pretty words. They are very committed to reigning in the spending. If substantial progress is not made based on their terms, then they will not stick with the GOP. It is also pretty certain that they would NOT then just hop to the Democrats. If politicians who run with the GOP do not perform, the Tea Party support may very well go to some other 3rd party in 2012. Who can say what will happen? But the facts are currently this... The GOP will 100% owe their victory tomorrow (however extensive) to the Tea Party vote. If they don't put Obama in a hammerlock and start rolling back his policies then 2012 will make 2010 look like a game of pattycake.

Psychologic says...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The Tea Party is all about fiscal responsibility, budget balance, and reducing government.


I am looking forward to seeing if those on the right really do live up to their talk. It's fairly safe to claim fiscal responsibility and vote against Democratic spending proposals, but actively advancing legislation to make large cuts in Medicare/Social Security/Military is a whole new level of political risk.

GuyFawkes says...

Red puppet... Blue puppet... Wake up America! Your government hasn't run your country since Kennedy was assassinated.
$11,900,000,000,000 in dept and rising. Open your eyes, seek out the truth.

StukaFox says...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Attention American Left, you're 30% of the population, TOPS. These actors can choose to be wards of the State, I'll take my chances with dangerous freedom.


Liberals GIVE freedoms.

Rightists TAKE freedoms.

That's how it's always been. That's how it will always be.

Vote Freedom -- Vote Liberal.

ldeadeyesl says...

The tea-party started out as a decent movement. Then all of the private interests saw a way to pay less in taxes. I live in Wisconsin, and I'm terrified that my favorite senator Feingold (who earned my lifetime vote when he alone had the sense to vote against the patriot act) is trailing in the polls to a tea-party business owner who is backed by the Catholic church. The ironic thing to me is that this guy might win on the premise of cutting taxes, and appealing to the religious voters. I relate more to democrats, but don't vote the line. I was disillusioned with Obama after he made it clear he lied about raising the tax on incomes over 250k (most of the reason he had my support, and yes I'm slightly socialist). However I will be truly crushed if a politician who is actually credible loses to a guy because people vote on their religious beliefs, and false promises of tax breaks for the middle class. When really I think it will be aimed more at the upper class. Oh and this video is mostly bullshit. Either party would have probably done just as bad a job in most of these situations. Vote for people not parties.

America should go back to the old system of taxing income of over 2-3 million at 50-80%. That is the only realistic way of recovering the insane amount of money we've spent. If we cut services to do it instead there would be even more problems.

GuyFawkes says...

Google "Petition Oppose S 773 Cybersecurity Act 2009"

The bill is on to senate and house.

Sign petitions and kill the bill.

the internet is our greatest weapon

hPOD says...

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.

Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

Mikus_Aurelius says...

If the tea party were serious about balancing the budget, they'd have my vote. Unfortunately the entire plan is to cut "needless government waste" (defined as a handful of programs they don't like, totaling well below $50 billion annually), while pushing through tax cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars per year. None of them are willing to tell voters that the price for fiscal discipline is a lower standard of living than we had under the debt fueled orgy of the last 30 years.

Let me go on the record and say I will not vote for any politician who promises to cut my taxes while we're running a deficit. Such people are either too dishonest or too mathematically incompetent to govern.

hPOD says...

I don't believe any "party" is serious about cutting spending or balancing budgets. I do, however, believe there are a few individuals in every party that want to do so, but I think the overwhelming majority of them don't really care.

When the Republicans were in office, they spent, now that they're out office they claim they will stop spending. The Democrats are no different, they talk about slashing budgets and cutting spending all the while it's being raised across the board, while promising these cuts/savings will happen in the future with NO real accountability if it never happens. Both parties love to play pretend, and the majority of the people love to pretend along with them, and that's the problem. It's highlighted in this thread perfectly. The republican posters say X, the democratic posters say Y, and both pretend X and Y are right with no in-between.

The few of us who see both can be right at times and wrong at times...we are so outnumbered it doesn't matter what we think. You'll see this highlighted in responses to my posts.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

If the tea party were serious about balancing the budget, they'd have my vote. Unfortunately the entire plan is to cut "needless government waste" (defined as a handful of programs they don't like, totaling well below $50 billion annually), while pushing through tax cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars per year. None of them are willing to tell voters that the price for fiscal discipline is a lower standard of living than we had under the debt fueled orgy of the last 30 years.
Let me go on the record and say I will not vote for any politician who promises to cut my taxes while we're running a deficit. Such people are either too dishonest or too mathematically incompetent to govern.

Mashiki says...

>> ^StukaFox:


Liberals GIVE freedoms.
Rightists TAKE freedoms.
That's how it's always been. That's how it will always be.
Vote Freedom -- Vote Liberal.


If that was anywhere close to true, you wouldn't have liberals pushing to criminalize behavior in your own home, and try to force opinions on people by using things like the fairness doctrine.

ldeadeyesl says...

What are "liberals" trying to push to make illegal in your home? All the hype over taking away guns is the only thing that comes to mind and it is way overblown. I'm more worried about the Tea Party candidates who think we should remove separation of church and state, and lower taxes when we are already crippled with debt.

Lawdeedaw says...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
If Tea Partiers want less spending, I can guarantee they will be disappointed. Every Government is the highest spending until the next one. The biggest lie the Republicans have got over the ignorant is that they're the party of small government.
This in entirely possible. The Tea Party will doubtless be watching the GOP very very carefully. These guys aren't your run-of-the-mill bunch you can swing with pretty words. They are very committed to reigning in the spending. If substantial progress is not made based on their terms, then they will not stick with the GOP. It is also pretty certain that they would NOT then just hop to the Democrats. If politicians who run with the GOP do not perform, the Tea Party support may very well go to some other 3rd party in 2012. Who can say what will happen? But the facts are currently this... The GOP will 100% owe their victory tomorrow (however extensive) to the Tea Party vote. If they don't put Obama in a hammerlock and start rolling back his policies then 2012 will make 2010 look like a game of pattycake.



I will be amused to see the Tea Party TRULY want to cut spending--starting with their benefits first! Cut the military spending (Which needs cut badly) and make it stronger at the same time? Unlikely. Their retirement? Their community benefits? Tax meglo-corporation churches that are hardly non-profit? Cut spending on their grandchildren's schools?

I will be vastly amused if that happens. Of course that is required to start a moment that will save this entire country from debt--but let's be real WP, it is not going to happen because the Tea Party is full of crap.

I am sad by this.

Mashiki says...

Well lets see we can start with various forms of entertainment control. And the various flappy headed talks of control on 'violent media'. Then we can go on the 'we're going to/want to ban what you eat' mode.

You should be supporting lower taxes. Raising them doesn't do you any good, but since your tax code is a mess I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. High taxation leads to people shoveling their money elsewhere, and buying only the basics. Prosperity comes from having disposable income.

>> ^ldeadeyesl:

What are "liberals" trying to push to make illegal in your home? All the hype over taking away guns is the only thing that comes to mind and it is way overblown. I'm more worried about the Tea Party candidates who think we should remove separation of church and state, and lower taxes when we are already crippled with debt.

ldeadeyesl says...

Liberal media control... both sides have their propaganda, just watch Fox News.

Banning what you eat? I've never seen this as a talking point for liberals

How about banning important research for curing diseases because it uses stem cells?
How does that preserve our freedom. Yet it's a common conservative talking point.
Or banning violent video games sales to kids, (parents should decide imo) conservatives did try to do that today right?

I'm still in college right now so I'm not paying taxes. I however will have no problem paying taxes, even high taxes if I feel it is helping support government programs that help our country. The idea that the upper class having lower taxes will help our economy is flawed in my opinion. By lowering taxes for the upper class you are throwing away the largest potential tax income for the country.

I understand the trickle down effect, and it is a highly debated economic theory. I however think that when you have people with hundreds of millions of dollars getting huge tax breaks it hurts the country as a whole. I just think that their taxed income would help our society more in government programs, than in a bank.

My tax code is probably not as crazy as you think if you care to look it up, income tax on money earned over 400,000 used to be over 90% In the 1960's, I also venture that our country was a lot better off back then, when the super-rich had a sense American Pride, and were not just trying to get people elected so they can pile their money up higher, while creating an illusion of everyone being better off from lower taxes. Americans should be ashamed to amass $90 billion for their families (Waltons). Greed is not good.

>> ^Mashiki:

Well lets see we can start with various forms of entertainment control. And the various flappy headed talks of control on 'violent media'. Then we can go on the 'we're going to/want to ban what you eat' mode.
You should be supporting lower taxes. Raising them doesn't do you any good, but since your tax code is a mess I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. High taxation leads to people shoveling their money elsewhere, and buying only the basics. Prosperity comes from having disposable income.

Yogi says...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

True - the GOP has certainly not won any points lately. I'll be very interested to see how the establishment GOP reacts to all these Tea Party winners come Wednesday. The Tea Party is all about fiscal responsibility, budget balance, and reducing government. If the freshman of the 2010 congress go there and just keep the Big Gummint bandwagon rolling then there's going to be a lot of very angry consituents.


You mean Lynching up Dem Negroes? Seriously though please leave.

Matthu says...

"The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. " -- Noam Chomsky

Yes.

And I'm. Getting. FUCKING. Sick of it.

jwray says...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

A fair representation, I suppose, of the 20% of the voting public that is still vainly clinging to the last, threadbare tatters of the fantasy they had in 2008 that everything was all the Republicans fault. Fact is Obama had 2 years of supermajorities in the house & senate and he did everything he wanted. The far left just can't accept that fact that what Obama wanted has driven up debt, reduced freedom, stifled business, created massive unemployment, left the U.S. foreign policy feebly twisting in the wind, and demonstrably shown the entire left wing economic & political platform to be a complete and utter failure. Also the fact is that the economic issues that happened under Bush were the result of him pursuing a LEFT leaning domestic spending policy. No - debt was not caused by War/Tax cuts. It was caused by profligate government spending at a time when they should have been cutting.


1. Unemployment is dropping and the economy is growing. The opposite was occurring so rapidly when bush left office, that it took a while to turn around. The president can't fix everything instantly, especially when republicans are fillibustering virtually everything regardless of whether they agree with it.

jwray says...

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?

Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.

Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.


hPOD says...

Talk about a loaded response of nothing.

First, if you want to have a discussion, start by talking to me, not at me [or others] as if I'm some uneducated schlub.

Second, and most importantly, think before you type. If you even though about what you posted you'd know it would be impossible to have not been born, raised, fed, clothed, educated, etc. This entire point is completely pointless, since it's goes against the grain of reality, physics, bio-science, etc. Had those things not occurred, I wouldn't be here, now would I? The idea that you thought you had to ask if I was ever born, raised, clothed, etc...is just so amazingly ignorant.

Now then, to answer the valid parts of your post:

Yes, I've bought a car, on a loan.

Yes, I've made investments, on loans, such as my house/mortgage (which I pointed out earlier and you conveniently ignored, by the way).

Yes, I've had loans of other sorts, too.

None of those things contribute to a person being fiscally responsible.

I repeat. Having affordable loans do NOT contribute to fiscal irresponsibility. You don't have to be completely liquid in order to live within your means, and I never claimed that you did. What you CANNOT do, however, is eat expensive dinners every night when you cannot afford them. You cannot buy a 50,000$ car when all you can afford (even on a loan) is a 17,000$ car. You cannot buy new televisions when you're still paying off the one you own now. This should be common sense, and in that common sense, you should have understood that was my point to begin with.

Being fiscally responsible does NOT mean you have to be liquid. It merely means you should be able to afford the loans you do have, without drowning beneath them. If you cannot pay off your current loans without going further into debt, then don't get new loans.

It's a simple concept.

>> ^jwray:

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?
Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.
Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.
>> ^hPOD:
Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.



jwray says...

Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:

I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.

That precludes important investments, such as going to college.

You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.

Mcboinkens says...

>> ^jwray:
Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:
I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.
That precludes important investments, such as going to college.
You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.



Oh snap, he just Ayn Randed you ass.

hPOD says...

It hurt so badly, too. Only it didn't.

He doesn't know me, yet he believes everything I said to him comes from Ayn Rand, someone I've never read. That shows his complete arrogance and ignorance, and it's why I try to ignore his subsequent -- and once again amazingly ignorant -- post.

He refuses to listen to logic/reason, so he keeps on rambling in an attempt to associate anything I say to whatever he feels like associating it with, in this case Ayn Rand. Call this a weak swing and a miss on his/her part, as they have no understanding of who they're even speaking with, meanwhile, they're taking my post completely out of context.

Note how he takes everything I said about fiscal responsibility and living within your means out of context and applies it to an interdependent society, which is off subject. He turned a discussion into an argument, lost that argument, and therefore begins to remove context and add new context to the discussion in an attempt to make his invalid point more valid.

Point remains, people can and do live within their means (fiscal responsibility), which was the original context of my point/of this discussion. I never spoke on the fact that we are interdependent as a society and rely on others, or the fact that we were raised by others who assisted us to get where we are, as it had nothing to do with the point of fiscal responsibility being a real thing.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^jwray:
Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:
I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.
That precludes important investments, such as going to college.
You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.


Oh snap, he just Ayn Randed you ass.

hPOD says...

Out of context.

Overuse of big words in inappropriate situations. You're the type that tries to throw around big words so the uneducated or undereducated assume you're right, when in this case you are completely wrong.

Stay in context.

People can and do live within their means, such as myself. Needing loans or other people to raise you in order to do so has NOTHING to do with the fact that people CAN live within their means.

You've lost, so stop digging your hole deeper with big words you have no idea how to use.

Listen to your own sentence, "Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding", on an uneducated fool, phrases such as this sound intelligent...to the educated of us, you sound like a fool, because with all of those big words, you said exactly nothing.

And for the record, I never once mentioned self-sufficiency, as I think this is completely and utterly impossible in every way in the modern world. Stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to make your pointless statements valid. You're the ONLY one here that mentioned self-sufficiency, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand -- and that remains fiscal responsibility. Though I do commend you on your attempt to completely change the applied subject matter, you failed to do so. Again, the subject at hand is if fiscal responsibility is reality, and it is. It does not mean you have to be liquid, nor does it mean you didn't need other people to get where you are, these are unrelated to the discussion. My original response was in response to a person that said on the subject of fiscal responsibility, and I quote, "it's a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan". That's the context in which I replied too, and it's the only context in which you are allowed to apply my statement too.

Being self-sufficient has nothing to do with being fiscally responsible.

Stay in the context of the discussion next time. We are discussing fiscal responsibility, NOT self-sufficiency, not Ayn Rand, and not people such as yourself that feel the overuse of big words make you sound intelligent.

>> ^jwray:

Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:
I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.
That precludes important investments, such as going to college.
You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.

hPOD says...

I understand them perfectly...you simply don't know how to use them.

And oh no...I've been ignored by you.

What's wrong, can't accept that differing opinions exist? People like you are typical...I bet you consider yourself open minded, and in you're own little reality, you are...so long as everyone thinks exactly like you do.

You've failed.

Do not pass go, do not collect 200$, go directly to fail.

Next time, keep things in context and maybe your big word wielding self won't get owned.

>> ^jwray:

If you look up those big words, you'll find I used them correctly. I'm sorry you don't understand them. Welcome to my ignore list.

jwray says...

>> ^ldeadeyesl:

Or banning violent video games sales to kids, (parents should decide imo) conservatives did try to do that today right?


Unfortunately, there are several democrats in support of that, such as Hillary Clinton, despite the total lack of evidence of any connection between video game violence and real world detriment and despite the fact that it violates the first amendment.

bobknight33 says...

Are you kidding?
The majority of blacks during those days were Republican and that stayed that way up through Dr. Martin Luther King times.

Everyone knows that the KKK was formed by the Democrat party to keep keep non white from voting Republican. The Democrats do what they do best instill fear and lies.>> ^Yogi:

You mean Lynching up Dem Negroes? Seriously though please leave.

jwray says...

The situation was never as simple as D=Confederates and R=Union. Plenty of blacks voted for FDR. The tipping point I guess was when dems supported, passed, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and people like Strom Thurmond who filibustered it switched to the republican party. After 1964 all the wealthy white male bigots flocked to the Republican party, and their platform reflected that.

Nearly all the states that didn't ratify the Equal Rights Amendment are now Republican strongholds, because sexism is implicit part of the platform of the Republican party (and it mostly comes from bible-thumping).

xxovercastxx says...

>> ^StukaFox:

Liberals GIVE freedoms.
Rightists TAKE freedoms.
That's how it's always been. That's how it will always be.
Vote Freedom -- Vote Liberal.


Sorry, but no government provides freedom. Some people like to refer to our rights as God-given, but they're wrong too. Freedoms cannot be given.

Freedom is something we take from our would-be oppressors. No one can take away my freedom of speech; I have to give it up. So long as I speak, I have freedom of speech. No government; left, right, progressive, conservative, liberal, socialist, communist; can change that.

xxovercastxx says...

>> ^jwray:

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?
Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.
Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.


There's a huge difference between taking out a loan you can pay off, and running up all your credit cards to the limit with no plan for paying the bills. Guess which one resembles our fiscal policy for the last 30 years.

jwray says...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^StukaFox:
Liberals GIVE freedoms.
Rightists TAKE freedoms.
That's how it's always been. That's how it will always be.
Vote Freedom -- Vote Liberal.

Sorry, but no government provides freedom. Some people like to refer to our rights as God-given, but they're wrong too. Freedoms cannot be given.
Freedom is something we take from our would-be oppressors. No one can take away my freedom of speech; I have to give it up. So long as I speak, I have freedom of speech. No government; left, right, progressive, conservative, liberal, socialist, communist; can change that.


In a state of anarchy there is very little freedom due to mob justice, tribal warfare, etc. Governments "provide" freedom by preventing people from hurting other people, and possibly subsidizing the bare necessities of existence so that adhesion to the will of an employer is not backed by the threat of death. The starvation of the homeless is murder by omission rather than murder by comission. A minimum of safety net is necessary to enable having a truly free market without burdening the conscience. Here in the USA we have it backwards, focusing on chastizing employers for layoffs, even if those jobs were obsolete or inefficient and the economy would be better served by employing those people elsewhere. When a layoff is less ruinous for the individual, employers are under less pressure to diverge from doing what is necessary to be maximally efficient.

xxovercastxx says...

>> ^jwray:

In a state of anarchy there is very little freedom due to mob justice, tribal warfare, etc. Governments "provide" freedom by preventing people from hurting other people, and possibly subsidizing the bare necessities of existence so that adhesion to the will of an employer is not backed by the threat of death. The starvation of the homeless is murder by omission rather than murder by comission. A minimum of safety net is necessary to enable having a truly free market without burdening the conscience. Here in the USA we have it backwards, focusing on chastizing employers for layoffs, even if those jobs were obsolete or inefficient and the economy would be better served by employing those people elsewhere. When a layoff is less ruinous for the individual, employers are under less pressure to diverge from doing what is necessary to be maximally efficient.


You're not talking about freedom; you're talking about law and order. No angry mob or rival tribe can take away freedom of speech. I can be censored, threatened, bribed, assaulted or even killed, but my freedom can not be taken away. Only I can choose not to speak freely.

If you want to argue that certain governments are more freedom-friendly, then yes, that's absolutely true, but they do not give anyone freedom.

NetRunner says...

@xxovercastxx, if you define freedom that way, then it's fundamentally silly for anyone to protest government action as somehow limiting their freedom; it can't.

Talking about how government can be "freedom-friendly" is just trying to weasel out from under your declarations of the absolute and innate property of freedom.

Liberals are freedom-friendly, because they want to increase the number of situations in which every citizen can expect their government to defend their freedom.

Conservatives are anti-freedom-friendliness because they want to decrease the number of situations in which any citizen can expect government to defend their freedom.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

I don't mean it as an insult, they are literally lacking in political knowledge. If you'd like me to use a more respectful term for ignorance, I'd be happy to oblige. Knowledge impaired? Intellectually disabled? I'll go with whatever you like best...

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.


xxovercastxx says...

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/xxovercastxx" title="member since February 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">xxovercastxx, if you define freedom that way, then it's fundamentally silly for anyone to protest government action as somehow limiting their freedom; it can't.
Talking about how government can be "freedom-friendly" is just trying to weasel out from under your declarations of the absolute and innate property of freedom.
Liberals are freedom-friendly, because they want to increase the number of situations in which every citizen can expect their government to defend their freedom.
Conservatives are anti-freedom-friendliness because they want to decrease the number of situations in which any citizen can expect government to defend their freedom.


Funny, I see it as the most validating reason to go out and protest. People complain that they can't protest without being arrested or that they're required to protest in "free speech zones". The government has not defeated these people, they've defeated themselves. You can protest anywhere you damn well please and the government needs to be reminded of that from time to time.

Laws only have power when a significant majority backs them. As the disobedient reach a critical mass, the law becomes unenforceable. Hence, you keep your freedom by exercising it. I don't need the government to defend my freedom, I just want them to stop trying to interfere with it.

I'm not weaseling out of anything, you've just completely failed to understand my point.

NetRunner says...

@xxovercastxx I think you're failing to understand mine.

I agree with your point about people making sure to stand up for what rights they're supposedly entitled to. Nobody's against that, as near as I can tell.

What I'm saying is that if you define freedom as something nobody can take away from you, then you have to follow that to the logical extension of that, which is that government cannot take it away from you, and furthermore no one in history has ever had their freedom taken away, even slaves.

It's a semantic issue, but I think an important one. The way I see it, you only have freedom when you actually have the ability to exercise it without having to acquire some authority's permission.

"Freedom of speech" is a funny thing. You can still get fired for voicing honest opinions. You can still get arrested for trespassing on someone's property (i.e. assembling in protest where people don't want you protesting). You can have your ideas vilified or ignored by the elites who control the flows of information. You can even be the victim of character assassination so that no one listens to what you have to say.

When people talk about "freedom of speech", they're usually not talking about actual freedom to act without submitting to some outside authority, but instead this very narrow promise from the government that it won't jail you for saying something it disapproves of. It doesn't even really hold true to its own promise all the time.

Do you have freedom of speech, or do you just have some legal right (i.e. something the government promises you can claim when it does arresting you) known as "freedom of speech"?

Liberals look at this as an exercise of making sure the government keeps its promises, and whether it makes sense for government to take action to increase the scope of your actual freedom of speech.

Conservatives often look at this as if the scope of government is the only determinant for freedom. Government "can't" pass laws that limit your freedom of speech (because it promises not to!), but likewise government can't pass laws that force privately owned corporations to respect the freedom of assembly and speech of people who take issue with what they've been doing. To do otherwise is to take away our freedoms!

(But they can't be taken away, so that's silly...)

xxovercastxx says...

@NetRunner

I think it's more of a philosophical issue than one of semantics, though there's definitely a semantic component.

Right off the bat, I think we both agree that it's far preferable that the government is supportive of your rights and freedoms.

There are probably many logical conclusions that you could take my premise to, but I do not take it to the particular one you insist is required.

To say one has freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no repercussions for speaking freely. If I go downtown and start screaming racial obscenities, I'm probably going to get my ass kicked (and rightfully so). That doesn't change the fact that I can do that if I want to.

On the flip side, if I attend a protest against the government's use of torture, I may well get my ass kicked, tasered and arrested. That still doesn't change the fact that I can say what I want.

We all have degrees of freedom of speech, limited primarily by what we feel comfortable with and what we think is appropriate. Those we impose upon ourselves are the only real limits.

Understand that, in this context, I'm talking about freedom as in our 'self-evident', 'inalienable rights'. Clearly, being imprisoned takes away your physical freedom, but I draw a distinction between that and what I'm talking about. I realize many (most?) people do not.

Or maybe they do. How many people here on VideoSplif are waiting for pot to be legalized so they can have a joint? And how many people light up whenever they feel like it? Do you believe the government has given us the right to smoke pot, or is it a right we've taken?

I disagree that liberals are "pro-freedom" and conservatives are "anti-freedom"; they simply have different definitions of freedom or, at least, different priorities. I disagree, to some extent, with both of them.

Maybe I've struck on a good way to make my point... What freedoms do you believe have been given to us by government?

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

Liberals are freedom-friendly, because they want to increase the number of situations in which every citizen can expect their government to defend their freedom.

I see. So when liberals tell me I can't have salt, trans-fat, tobacco products, plastic grocery bags, develop oil, own property, use my own money on school vouchers, force me to support laws I disagree with, and force states to overturn laws they pass, et al - they are DEFENDING freedom instead of taking it away. This is a fascinating (if unsurprising) peek at the mental landscape of liberals.

This is where the intellectual and philosophical divide exists between conservatives and liberals. Liberals believe that big government and central planning "defend freedom". Conservatives believe that big government and central planning is tyranny. I believe history proves that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Welles "Animal Farm" nails the pattern. People overthrow tyranny with good intentions, and then those who come to power themselves become tyrants - always with good intentions.

The only solution is to strip government of power and forbid them from exercising authority over the people. That's why the Consitution was such a brilliant document. It limited GOVERNMENT - not people. That's also why Barak Obama is such a moron, and why he should never have been let within a million miles of power. He claims to be a constitutional scholar - and yet he has ZERO understanding or respect for the core, basic REASON why it is so brilliant.


This is the little gem our Man-Child president dropped that told me instantly that he was unfit to hold any public office. Period.

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."

I do not doubt that you completely agree with this sentiment Netrunner. And that agreement is why you are wrong - and at the most fundamental level why you and those like you are so stridently opposed by over 65% of the nation. People with their heads screwed on right understand perfectly that any person who believes that government should be an organization which "must bring about redistributive change" is anti-American, anti-liberty, and should NEVER be allowed to hold power or push laws their way. EVER.

NetRunner says...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's more of a philosophical issue than one of semantics, though there's definitely a semantic component.
...
There are probably many logical conclusions that you could take my premise to, but I do not take it to the particular one you insist is required.


That's why I'm saying the issue I'm raising is largely a semantic quibble. I don't think you mean what you're saying. I think you mean to say something close to, but not exactly what you said.

I think you meant to say this:



A totalitarian system has to break the will of every person trapped inside it before freedom can truly be eradicated. Even then, it seems that eventually it springs up anew in people, sometimes it just takes a little longer than others.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
To say one has freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no repercussions for speaking freely. If I go downtown and start screaming racial obscenities, I'm probably going to get my ass kicked (and rightfully so). That doesn't change the fact that I can do that if I want to.


True, but the threat of those repercussions constrain you from acting as you would like to. To draw on the Babylon 5 clip above, they told him to submit, or die. He was already locked in a cell. He'd already been tortured. He'd been beaten. Starved. Deprived of sleep. Poisoned. They even threatened his father's life. The lives of everyone he'd ever loved. In the end, they threatened his own life. They even staged a mock execution, and only at the last second...they just started over at the beginning, as if nothing had happened.

Had he submitted, would you consider his freedom stolen, or surrendered willingly?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Understand that, in this context, I'm talking about freedom as in our 'self-evident', 'inalienable rights'. Clearly, being imprisoned takes away your physical freedom, but I draw a distinction between that and what I'm talking about. I realize many (most?) people do not.


Yeah, but are they really self-evident? Are they really inalienable? Those were beautiful words, and they were a massively revolutionary sentiment at the time, but it wasn't really a statement of fact about how the universe works. It was a declaration of how things should be, not how they are.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Or maybe they do. How many people here on VideoSplif are waiting for pot to be legalized so they can have a joint? And how many people light up whenever they feel like it? Do you believe the government has given us the right to smoke pot, or is it a right we've taken?


Since pot is still illegal, it's clearly not a right government has given us. It's also clearly not a right -- I can't demand that I can smoke pot, anywhere, anytime, regardless of how anyone else feels about it. I also can't expect pot to be provided to me, whether I can pay for it or not.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I disagree that liberals are "pro-freedom" and conservatives are "anti-freedom"; they simply have different definitions of freedom or, at least, different priorities.


I agree with that, and I was phrasing things the way I was more to illustrate those different ideas about freedom than because I'm enslaved by some black and white view of the world.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What freedoms do you believe have been given to us by government?


For one, property rights only exist as function of government. Otherwise, "property" would just be whatever you could stop other people from taking away from you.

Most "rights" follow a similar pattern, e.g. right of habeas corpus, right to vote, right to a redress of grievances, etc.

As for "freedoms", you are free to change jobs (or quit entirely) because of government. You are free to demand, and expect pay for your labor. You are free to walk around unarmed thanks to the expectation of law enforcement. No one is allowed to force you to do anything, and if they try, the government is expected to stop them.

Government makes it so there is a threat of violence hanging over the head of those who refuse to respect individual freedom, and that's counterbalanced by a strong societal value that if the government stops respect individual freedom, that we have a duty to remove that government.

As I see it, there seem to be powerful people who are hell bent on eroding the laws and traditions that make up that equilibrium. (And yes, I think they largely wield "conservatives" as a blunt instrument to that end, using them like an auto-immune disease to kill government, so they can go back to the good old days of monarchy)

People on the right seem to act like rights and freedom are something they have that can't be taken away. I think that's insane. Without government, your "freedom" will be taken from you before you can say "caveat emptor." Freedom can and has been stolen, all throughout history. If anything we live in an unprecedented golden age of man where freedom is for most intents and purposes is in the hands of the individual, largely because we turned our governments into democratic collective entities charged with creating a society where individuals can expect to be free.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

A lie. Conservatives happily lie down for big government when its limiting the freedoms of people they don't like (see gay marriage, abortion, muslims.)

No. REPUBLICANS do. There's a difference. You're talking also about social conservatives, which is a different animal. When I talk about conservatism as a philosophical principle, I'm talking about limited government and state's rights - not abortion, gay marriage, or what have you. When liberals talk about 'conservatives' they generally confine their mental image of conservatism to far-right social conservatives and ignore the far larger swathe of folks who are 'conservative' only for fiscal reasons or in their perception of the proper role of government.

Government makes it so there is a threat of violence hanging over the head of those who refuse to respect individual freedom, and that's counterbalanced by a strong societal value that if the government stops respect individual freedom, that we have a duty to remove that government.

Government is "tyranny creep". The U.S. government is not tyrannical because the Constitution limits what it can do. Limited government is good. No person is saying government should not exist at all. Conservatives simply want government reduced to a proper size and scope (and price). Government is the place for people to go to REDRESS a greivance. Government should not exist as a hypothetical entity that prevents grievences from existing.

But Neolibs have an infinite number of societal changes they want to impose in the name of "improving" society. Take any neolib cause you want. Strip away the pretty language and it always comes down to using government to force people to behave a certain way "for their own good". I.E. Tyranny.

Freedom means that you allow people to act in ways they want - even when you don't like it. That means people have the freedom to be jerks, asses, and even do horrible things. Government's proper role is to punish those who cause harm. Government is horribly misapplied when people (left or right) use it to club people into adhering to subjective codes of conduct. It doesn't work. It never has.

That means all these leftist causes (food, environment, gay marriage, et al) are inherently tyrannical because they are rooted in the philosophy that government should FORCE (or coerce) people into behaving a certain way. The social conservatives do this too, so it isn't one sided, but by and large the effort to use government to force "social justice" and "societal change" is the perview of the left. Therefore the left is pro-tyranny and anti-freedom because freedom pi$$es them off when people don't use it the way that neolibs want.

The language of a tyrant is this... "You are not allowed to..." And how many liberal causes begin with that exact language. "Parents shouldn't be allowed to feed kids junk food because they're too fat..." "People shouldn't be allowed to pray in schools because it might offend someone..." "People shouldn't be allowed to smoke because its bad for them..." "People shouldn't be allowed - shouldn't be allowed - shouldn't be allowed..." Blah blah blah blah. Anything that causes a liberal personal outrage or indignation becomes something that people "Shouldn't be allowed" to do. And all liberals ultimately appeal to government to try and use force to make it so people "aren't allowed" to do those things. Tyranny = liberalism. Fact.

KnivesOut says...

Winstonfield_Pennypacker = ranting loon. Fact.

I can't imagine what you'd be doing if you weren't trolling videosift, but I guess it keeps you off the streets, so thats a net positive.

Tell me more about how the facist neolibs want to take over our country one cheeseburger at a time. Also include the part where the patriotic bastions of freedom on the right engineered Citizens United so kindly megacorporations can secretly buy campaigns... FOR FREEDOM.

NetRunner says...

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker you know, that sentence of mine you quoted is probably one of the most positive things I have ever said about the idea of limited government. I quite literally said it's a necessary part of the equilibrium that makes freedom possible.

...and you ranted on for 5 paragraphs about how I'm an evil fascist anyways.

@blankfist, please, help me reason with this man.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

Not everything is about you Netrunner. The statement talking about balancing government's role as a "threat of violence" versus versus the need to remove a government that stops respecting freedom was a fair one. I was waxing prolix on leftist tyranny creep - I.E. the process of using government to implement leftist social philosophy. I used your comment to show how our government has stopped 'respecting freedom' via tyranny creep. I never recall even mentioning your name. Where did I call you facist? You could only infer that secondarily if you felt that the leftist interpretation of 'social justice' actually should be forced on the people via government edict, and you were mad that I identified such a philosophy as tyranny.

Regardless, I don't see any refutation my position - only protestations that the argument was made. Leftist political philosophy is inherently tyrannical in nature. Modern U.S. governance is drifting more and more leftist every year whether under the GOP or Democrats, and the end result is less freedom and more tyranny. The recent congress is a great example. The American people rejected Obamacare in all its forms... Obama's plan, the House bill, the Senate revisions... All rejected. What did government do? They used tyranny. They rammed the bill through via an unconstitutional, arguably illegal budget reconciliation Tyranny. That's how the left works. When Democracy fails to allow them to get their way, they use force.

who voted against this video:
who bookmarked this post:

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon