Whoa. He must get beaten up a lot at school.

Listen, the principle here is that my principals principle principality is not in line with the principle of America's principles. Got it?

Jindal or Palin would be good picks for 2012? And the basis of conservatism is principal? Yeah, that's some prodigy.

Did he honestly say that he thought Sarah Palin would be one of the top candidates for 2012? Isn't she mentally retarded?

This is my emotional Response:
Lies, less government. What a load of shit. Respect for the constitution? Nothing but lies.

Rational Response:
Who coaches this guy? Karl Rove?

Couldn't be funnier if someone wrote all this nonsense.

Reality is insane.

blah blah blah [tuning out]

(if they're really listening to him, then no wonder things are as they are)

What an unbelievable snot. Just goes to show how in touch conservatives are with new ideas when their youngest representative seems like he's straight out of the bronze age.

wow the way he starts off, with the pompous hand thrusting forward and the "well look..." you'd think he was on fox n... news. uh huh. riiiight. just saw that logo in the lower left.

lol, respect for the constitution. That's a good one kid.
right there is the problem with the republican party, they are more concerned about getting in and staying in power than they are about effectively running the country.

He wrote a book?

Didn't he just learn how to read?

Goes to show you the reading levels most Republicans like to read at!

So, the Republican Party is the party of principles? And those four basic principles are 1)respect for the Constitution, 2)respect for life, 3)smaller government and 4)personal responsibility?

That may be what they say, but if we were to pick their party principles based on action, those basic principles would be 1)ignorance of Constitutional rights, 2)respect for religious jurisprudence, 3)larger funding for military industrial complex and 4)fuck gays.

I don't care what you guys say, I think imstellar looks adorable on TV.

Child stars, eh? I see a drug habit in his future.

Barf.

wow, the Evangelicals were right: The Anti-Christ IS alive in our day!
His real name is Damien.

Upvote for "prodigy" being in the well-deserved sarcasm quotation marks.

So, this is what it feels like to lose one's mind.

Being a political prodigy doesn't mean he's intelligent. it just means that he thinks Rush Limbaugh is right, which automatically disqualifies him from being taken seriously.

That being said, watch out for Jonathan Krohn in 2032.

A lot is said about the subscribers of a doctrine when a 14-year-old (shouting slogans) can blow their minds.

This just shows how easy it is to be an unthinking conservative, repeating catchphrases, stating conservative wisdom points. As if a 14 year old could make an informed parallel between Obama and Carter, not having lived through... well, anything.

This is silly.

A perfect leader for the republic party. Freaking perfect.

This kid is a good mimic. I think his ability to mirror the tenor and verbiage of the conservative talking points says less about his aptitude than it does about the overall emptiness of the conservative rhetoric.

In other words, when a parrot can repeat your argument, it's no longer a missive worth repeating.

The irony being, accusing someone of a talking point has become a talking point.

>> ^Trancecoach:
This kid is a good mimic. I think his ability to mirror the tenor and verbiage of the conservative talking points says less about his aptitude than it does about the overall emptiness of the conservative rhetoric.
In other words, when a parrot can repeat your argument, it's no longer a missive worth repeating.

>> ^blankfist:
and 4)fuck gays.


Except for not. That'd be gay.

Also, his mouth is REALLY FUCKING BIG.

>> ^imstellar28:
The irony being, accusing someone of a talking point has become a talking point.



Um.. look up irony. That isn't it.

I wouldn't be too hard on the kid. Gifted or not, the ability to engage in abstract thinking is still a relatively new phase in his cognitive development. Plus, he's probably surrounded by conservatives and has most likely been fed conservative thought and literature his whole life.

I would bet good money that by the time he's thirty he changes his mind about conservatives. No matter how intelligent he is, it would be difficult to dissent from the culture he was raised in at his age.

What really scares me is that he is the new conservative darling. But considering the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. I bet this kid at least knows how a pdf file works.

This reminds me of that terrible Star Trek The Next Generation episode where Picard is turned into a kid but retains his mental faculties

Wait for his book, "Little Jonny gets his first $10,000 hooker"

ironically, thats the most common response to real-world usage of the word "ironic"

>> ^Trancecoach
Um.. look up irony. That isn't it.

Someone from the party of Limbaugh/Palin with the intellectual maturity of a 14-year-old? Shocking!

*lies, *assholes

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by Fjnbk.

>> ^blankfist:
So, the Republican Party is the party of principles? And those four basic principles are 1)respect for the Constitution, 2)respect for life, 3)smaller government and 4)personal responsibility?
That may be what they say, but if we were to pick their party principles based on action, those basic principles would be 1)ignorance of Constitutional rights, 2)respect for religious jurisprudence, 3)larger funding for military industrial complex and 4)fuck gays.


>> ^siftbot:
Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.




Oh cool! So if I shit on Republicans I get a power point! If I shit on Democrats, I get ignored! Got it.

Prodigy my motherfucking ass =P

>> ^NetRunner:
I don't care what you guys say, I think imstellar looks adorable on TV.


Maybe QM perhaps, but not Imstellar.

this should be illegal.

it's too late guys, he's a goner. let's move on.

The ironing is delicious.

>> ^imstellar28:
ironically, thats the most common response to real-world usage of the word "ironic"
>> ^Trancecoach
Um.. look up irony. That isn't it.

>> ^hellomums2:
Child stars, eh? I see a drug habit in his future.



That, or he's off to Michael Jackson's farm any time

There's something about that often mentioned conservative principle of "personal responsibility" that needs to be translated for the rest of us. It makes more sense if you put yourself in the shoes of those that are significantly advantaged by birth, race, economics, etc. For all intents and purposes in the conservative mind:

"personal responsibility" = "not my problem".

For example:

"You were born as a minority in urban blight with crumbling schools? Not my problem, work your way out of it" (take responsibility for your own education)

"You were date-raped by some football player and are now pregnant? Not my problem." (take responsibility for being there in the first place and bear the child)

"Iraq refuses to embrace democracy and free market principles? Not my problem." (take responsibility for your messed-up country)

At least that's what I hear.

His demeanor is terrifying, but there's nothing wrong with the principles he espoused.

What shows his ignorance is his apparent belief (along with the rest of the Republitards) that Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin might actually support those principles in more than simple lip-service.

His words:
http://tinyurl.com/b3e5ju

"Barack Obama is the most left-wing president in my lifetime”

What a prodigy.

re: ""personal responsibility" = "not my problem""

I think there's some merit to what you're saying, but also the models liberals tend to use to understand society can't explain how people like the African-American economist Thomas Sowell can grow up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere, but nonetheless become nationally successful figures.

It seems like if Thomas Sowell believed he was a helpless victim in the way that liberals believe he was, than he wouldn't have been able to outperform so many liberals who had so many more advantages than he did.

"And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon." (Revelation 13:11)

Beware, folks...

For all intents and purposes in the liberal mind: "social equality" = "not my problem"

"You were born as a minority in urban blight with crumbling schools?" Not my problem. I'll lay a tax on others to pay for your schools rather than donate to you personally.

"You are now pregnant, but can't pay for the baby?" Not my problem. I'll lay a tax on others to pay for your child rather than donate to you personally.

"Iraq refuses to embrace democracy and free market principles?" Not my problem. I'll lay a tax on others to establish a military presence in your country, rather than attempting a peaceful philosophical change by personally setting a good example myself.

>> ^schmawy:
For all intents and purposes in the conservative mind:
"personal responsibility" = "not my problem".
For example:
"You were born as a minority in urban blight with crumbling schools? Not my problem, work your way out of it" (take responsibility for your own education)
"You were date-raped by some football player and are now pregnant? Not my problem." (take responsibility for being there in the first place and bear the child)
"Iraq refuses to embrace democracy and free market principles? Not my problem." (take responsibility for your messed-up country)
At least that's what I hear.

This kid's exactly one bongload and a listen to Dark Side of the Moon away from being the world's biggest liberal.

he's just a dork whose lips are red from koolaid

>> ^imstellar28:
For all intents and purposes in the liberal mind: "social equality" = "not my problem"


You have lost touch with reality.

You should move to a country that better suits your "it's not my problem, don't tax me" attitude.

India. India would suit you well.

Or maybe Nigeria.

Shoo.

Rougy, how's being the far left equivalent of Fox News working out for you?

It seems more reactive than proactive.

Is it not more likely that a young kid has arrived at a different conclusion than yours? The kid is clearly bright and articulate for his age, and if he was espousing a liberal point of view on MSNBC you guys would be begging to be the next in line to tongue his duodenum. But because he has a conservative perspective on FOX he gets insults, bigotry, and intolerance.

I have no party. I'm just a guy. In viewing the video I don't think the kid comes off as a parrot or zombie any more than you people do when you 'parrot' pre-memorized liberal talking points. He's just a kid who has a different perspective.

If you imply he's a zombie product of some sort conservative brainwashing in his upbringing, then you must also admit that many of YOU are zombie products of LIBERAL brainwashing (of which there is a lot).

Or - if it isn't too much trouble - maybe we could all just drop the labels and respect each other as human beings with different points of view... Only people with weak intellectual positions and a lack of faith in thier philosophy have to stoop to insults and labels.

The difference being that the principle behind "social equality" is to use tax dollars in a way that benefits the country as a whole more than it benefits the individuals who used to have that money. It states that an educated populace is good for the economy, and therefore, for the country as a whole; that children brought up in poverty are more likely to commit crimes, therefore supporting single mothers with tax dollars is an investment in the future of the country; and... Obama's pulling out of Iraq. It was Bush who went in.

The people who vote for a socialist government (BTW, in Canada, we don't think of socialism or liberalism as a bad thing, but I get the feeling that in the US it's like a cuss word. Is that so?) are actively saying, "We want the best for our country, and we are willing to pay more for it. That's what I'm saying by staying in Canada where the wages are lower, the taxes are higher, but my children will attend the best universities in the world, and I won't bankrupt my family if I get cancer.

>> ^imstellar28:
For all intents and purposes in the liberal mind: "social equality" = "not my problem"
"You were born as a minority in urban blight with crumbling schools?" Not my problem. I'll lay a tax on others to pay for your schools rather than donate to you personally.
"You are now pregnant, but can't pay for the baby?" Not my problem. I'll lay a tax on others to pay for your child rather than donate to you personally.
"Iraq refuses to embrace democracy and free market principles?" Not my problem. I'll lay a tax on others to establish a military presence in your country, rather than attempting a peaceful philosophical change by personally setting a good example myself.

The difference being that the principle behind "social equality" is to use tax dollars in a way that benefits the country as a whole more than it benefits the individuals who used to have that money.

There are many of the founding fathers, intelligent citizens, economists, philosophers, and thinkers who would argue that it is not the place of government to make decisions relating to the morality in determining 'what is good for the country'. What is deemed 'for the good of the country' varies from person to person. I would posit to you that heavy taxaton, excessive burdens on industry and wealth, as well as government control over the means of production and distribution are TERRIBLE for 'for the country'.

It states that an educated populace is good for the economy and therefore, for the country as a whole; that children brought up in poverty are more likely to commit crimes, therefore supporting single mothers with tax dollars is an investment in the future of the country

These are indeed societal goods. However, merely because there are undesireable or negative elements in society it does not logically follow that "government" is...
(A) the RIGHT entity to address these issues or
(B) any GOOD at addressing these issues.

I would posit to you that there is a lot of prima facie evidence both in the US and outside of it that government is BAD at addressing these issues. Even at its very best, government solutions to social issues are highly inefficient, wasteful, and requires the forceful confiscation of freedom. At worst, they devolve into fascism, oppression, and even genocide. Socially addressed societal ills are also never resolved. It can even be persuasively argued that central planning on societal issues as a general rule tends to actually make the problem even worse (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Fannie/Freddie, race quotas, 'War on Poverty', et al).

The people who vote for a socialist government are actively saying, "We want the best for our country, and we are willing to pay more for it."

I would suggest this is incorrect. Most people that like the romantic 'theory' of socialism are in fact saying, "We want the government to confistace wealth and dribble out inadequate amounts of it to whatever entities the government decides needs it." Sadly, 99.999% of the time, the government determines that THE GOVERNMENT is the entity that needs all that wealth...

That's what I'm saying by staying in Canada where the wages are lower, the taxes are higher, but my children will attend the best universities in the world

When the world thinks of great universities, Canada is not the country that generally comes to mind...

When you learn how to make arguments without loaded terms like "heavy taxation", "excessive burdens" and "genocide", then maybe I'll decide to reply to one of them. Given the way you wrote, for me to make an intelligent reply would take 80% refuting things I didn't say. Which is too bad, because you do make some interesting points in there.

Starting every paragraph with "I would suggest..." and "I would posit..." doesn't make your style appropriate, and putting smiley faces after put-downs doesn't work either.

Sad...

When you learn how to make arguments without loaded terms like "heavy taxation", "excessive burdens" and "genocide", then maybe I'll decide to reply to one of them. Given the way you wrote, for me to make an intelligent reply would take 80% refuting things I didn't say. Which is too bad, because you do make some interesting points in there.

I have found this sort of response to be commonly employed when debaters would rather stay on the surface instead of diving deep to the root of an issue. If you really want to address the substance, then it isn't difficult. Pick whatever adjectives you didn't like and toss them. Instead of 'heavy taxation' just say 'taxation' in your brain. It isn't a tough exercise, and should alleviate your overtly stated concern which you claim prevents you from continuing to substance.

However, I disagree with your opinion that the terminology was 'loaded'. That implies that the words were inaccurate or misleading. But they were not. The US taxes ARE heavy - 2nd highest on the planet in fact. Industry IS saddled with excessive burdens, which is why they shelter overseas to reduce costs. Socialist governments DO commit genocide when they are at thier worst (which is how I qualfied it). Stalin, Lenin, Khamir Rouge, China - there is no shortage of examples. Now, you may not personally LIKE the words I chose if they do not hew to your bias, but that does not mean that I have inaccurately applied them.

Regardless of that - Lord knows people (such as the kid in the vid) who espouse personal responsibility and small government have had to put up with more than their share of 'loaded terminology' when discussing issues. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You - for example - used loaded terms when you said 'benefits the country as a whole more than it benefits the individuals who used to have that money'. That's loaded. Who are you to say that the person who has the money isn't benefiting the country? Why is it assumed that a person who has earned wealth is somehow an unworthy custodian of it?

Starting every paragraph with "I would suggest..." and "I would posit..." doesn't make your style appropriate, and putting smiley faces after put-downs doesn't work either.

It is as I feared. You have no sense of humor. But in jest I made a good point. You claimed Canada has the best universities on the planet. Even the kindest evaluation wouldn't define Canada's colleges in that kind of lofty 'loaded' language. The QS poll lists the top 100 Universities, and Canada has grand total of four entries... #20, #34, #74, and #91. By comparison, the USA has 1, 2, 5, and 8-14, 17, and 18 of the top 20. I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just grounding you in reality.

>> ^chilaxe:
Rougy, how's being the far left equivalent of Fox News working out for you?
It seems more reactive than proactive.


Fuck you.

Steller will never have enough money. He thinks he's the only person in the world who pays taxes.

You? You actually have your moments, but that was a stupid ass thing to say to me.

I am so tired of you cry baby sons of bitches who act like you don't need anybody else and for that reason you shouldn't contribute your fair share to making this world a better place.

Your world is a selfish, shallow, mean little place.

"It seems like if Thomas Sowell believed he was a helpless victim in the way that liberals believe he was...."

That's not what liberals believe, you god damn idiot.

And Sowell is a right-wing ass kisser.

The far left devastates the intellectual arguments of their opponents again.

Hopefully, everyone who has Rougy on their ignore list has taken the time to see what an eloquent argument for social collectivism he makes.

>> ^StukaFox:
This kid's exactly one bongload and a listen to Dark Side of the Moon away from being the world's biggest liberal.

say: If that doesn't demonstrate the inherent problem of modern liberalism, I don't know what does.

read: I am suggesting that quite often, modern liberalist beliefs stem not from reading or critical thinking, but from divine abstraction as can be brought upon by drugs, hardship or beauty in life, or feelings of empathy or emotion towards others.

Wow I'll go get my 9 year old to poorly rehearse some green energy wind generator BS and instantly transform him into a "Green Energy Prodigy"

>> ^messenger:
The difference being that the principle behind "social equality" is to use tax dollars in a way that benefits the country as a whole more than it benefits the individuals who used to have that money

say: What is a country made up of?

read: I'm suggesting that your statement is a logical fallacy because, in effect, you are claiming that "[it]...benefits the group of individuals more than it benefits the individuals who comprise that group"