I swear to God, the majority of liberals on my college look exactly like that guy. Why do they have to wear those retro glasses, beards and horizontally stripped shirts is beyond me. Oh yeah, and those silly Arabian scarves they wear as soon the temperature falls under 20°C. It's like they produce them on the assembly line.
Ah, see, those people are called "hipsters." Not necessarily liberals, though most hipsters tend to be liberal-leaning.
More of a...modern youth styling. Like baggy pants or whatever the hell the 80's had going for them. I have nothing against the look, but I don't exactly have to see it everywhere I go AND know that they disagree with me politically; I can see how that would sour your view of them.
@TombaFanatic It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I learned what a 'hipster' is. What a bunch of losers. You should check out a video called 'annoying hipster douchebag', it's hilarious.
of course the liberal looks girly and gay and the conservative looks like a normal person. liberals complain about everything and dont do anything to fix their problems
Guns are a tool, so guns don't kill people: People use guns to kill people.
The issue is, guns exist. No amount of banning or legal legislation will get rid of them. In fact, banning them is only going to disarm people who obey the law, allowing those who don't care about the law (the one's more likely to rob and kill you) to have more control over you.
Also, governments do kill people. Usually in wars. Often times with guns too!
@TombaFanatic It is a good pro-gun argument. Allow me to try and counter. Now, I don't have a strong viewpoint on this, I am just taking one side because you took the other. Very few lives have been saved by private gun ownership but very many have been lost by it. Banning guns would not entirely erradicate criminals from owning them but if the legal manufacturing of them for individuals stopped, much FEWER criminals would own guns and thus, the fatality by guns would decrease.
That is both true and false. While fewer criminals would have guns, those that have them would be able to do much more with them. Furthermore, minor crimes would likely also go up.
Another argument is that it's hard to count how many lives guns have saved, as guns are mostly a preventative measure. A criminal is less likely to break into a house a place where they suspect others could shoot back.
Not quite. Most criminals are just people down on their luck who have no where left to turn. They commit crimes for their life, not to risk it. Others, are career criminals. Will purposely find people they find weak (secluded/no guns). Sure, you will always have the occasional psychopath or dumb teenager, but those only cause so much damage because they often times attack areas where people have no guns.
"Very few lives have been saved by private gun ownership but very many have been lost by it."
Your entire premise is wrong. You have no idea how many lives are protected and saved by guns. There is no effort to record such information, and even less effort to report such incidents in the media.
There are 2 people in this house right now that were saved by the use of my legally owned firearm. 1 of which used to be antigun until the real life lesson of self defense was shown.
I will support Libertarians for president. Most recently, that meant advocating a "Republican," Ron Paul. I don't care what party someone's from, just so long as they actually support Liberty. And that's real Liberty, not the euphemism for American Imperialism. Did you really "defend liberty," Mr. Bush?
@fuckinwiseguy Where in the hell did I say that Obama was any better? The reason I pointed out Bush was because, as a Republican, some people still actually thing he was big on economic liberty. When Obama does all this stimulus and bullshit, at least it fits in with the public image of this big-government party. I was making a point about claiming to defend liberty whilst actually reducing it. I could just as easily have pointed out Reagan, who was a the king of good rhetoric and bad policy.
What about Arizona's new law? Yeah conservatives do respect the 4th amendment don't they? Conservatives are far more dishonest than liberals at times.
@greenoffspring Nah i got to disagree. With all due respect, nobody's more full of shit than the pansy, begging-for-acceptance full blown liberal (the Bill Maher type). Almost sad to see sometimes. Now I am not a full conservative at all I do hold some liberal beliefs depending on the issue, its just an honest oberservation.
By and large, most conservatives (if they're ideological), would never ban any of the 10 Amendments because they understand them. If they want to ban porn or something like that, they do it at the state level because that is in accordance with the 1st Amendment (what is the first sentence in that amendment?). This notion that there is no real difference between the two sides is not only wrong, it's dishonest.
"Where's the amendment that let's the government run car companies?"
They should just get it over with and make a 28th amendment that says "We can do whatever the F%#* we want, so go piss off!!" Then America will clearly know what it is dealing with and finally act accordingly.
I don't drink Starbucks, I can get radio for free, and if I want to waste my time reading about how the future will be utopia is we give all our freedom to liberals in government, I can go to the locally funded library and read The Nation.
I dont believe in Liberal and Conservative it is bullshit... Im a american citizen not a conservative or a liberal... Or Right wing and Left wing bullshit.. It is all bullshit country will never change....
The left doesn't care about the Bill of Rights. They seek to silence conservative talk radio through the fairness doctrine (1st Amendment violation), they fight to oppress gun rights (2nd Amendment violation), and they constantly oppose the 9th and 10th Amendments. Not to even mention the other amendments and part of the Constitution they desecrate by grossly mis-interpreting them.
I will give them credit where credit is due. They want to grant terrorists these rights.....
I would only add that neither the Republican or the Democrat party have any values. They lost them decades ago.
Their ONLY purpose is to keep themselves in power and any third party OUT. They do this by polarizing the nation and forcing you to vote for a candidate because the other candidate is worse.
People are starting to catch on to this now. Hopefully it will be enough people so that in 2012 both parties crash and burn.
Why doesn't the "conservative" guy look like a filthy redneck with a bible and a gun? Don't these people know the stereotype that has been so frequent lately? and why didn't he agree when the liberal guy asked "where does it say the government can take over car companies?" republicans have been bailing out auto companies since Regan. Bush couldn't wait to bailout the banks. If you're going to do the fabled "real" conservative you cant put him against the jobless hippy tree-hugger type liberal.
The average conservative is more educated than the average liberal. Both my Republican parents have graduate degrees. In fact probably half of my Republican family has a graduate degree.
Recently the conservative steriotype has become the fundamentalist Christian redneck who votes only to keep his gun and cant wait for the end of the world so Jesus can come back as a super hero. With Boris Johnson, Pat Robertson, George Bush and the BNP the most vocal folks on their side, that has become the correct stereotype for them. Voting along with a party is pretty stupid.
Yes, when I go to the Heritage Foundations website, I definitely get that feeling. When I read William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review, likewise....
Should the liberal stereotype be a stoned college kid living off the welfare of mommy and daddy along side an inner city welfare queen living off the welfare of the government (which I fund)?
Well I think they got the unemployed pinko rich kid with a 3 day beard down okay. Because they weren't as adequate with the "conservative" character it muddies up the joke and betrays a bias.
Well, practically all stereotypes have shreds of truth to them for them to exist in the first place, but Republican voters are slightly more educated than Democrat voters. They tend to work in the private sector.
I don't see anyone mocking conservatives by calling them "better educated" and It isn't nearly as funny or acurate to their current political climate.
Actually, Militia's are made up of private citizens that anyone can join, maily not to defend from other people, but to defend against a state with a monopoly on violence and war.
Uhm , Im a conservative through and through, and we strongly support the bill of rights, and please dont bring up republicans, they are rarely conservative. I think for you to understand we should switch our name from conservative to constitutionalists. So please dont crap on Independant conservatives, tyvm
Some think a one sided narrow mindset should rule all-be it left or right-but it does not properly address all issues. We need to look at things with a more individual approach that considers the best methods to deal with things.Sometimes the right leaning approach may be better than the left and vice versa. A sail boat tacks into the wind leaning back and forth- left then right but never too much or it will tip over.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Libertarians are the biggest tools ever. They talk about civil liberties and all that stuff but then proceed to vote conservative because MY TAX DOLLARS FUCK THE POOR! Then they bitch when their civil liberties being taken away as if they weren't responsible in assisting with the conservatives' rise to power over the past few years.
What the hell are we celebrating tomorrow? The fact that we fought British oppression 200 years ago to allow the bankers to own us now? Seems like a hollow victory.
The only problem is there is only the extreme right and the right leaning democrats. There is NO centrist. If Nixon was alive today he would be TOO liberal for the republican party! Kennedy would be call a communist, Eisenhower would be call anti-military, and Reagan a cut and runner!!!
We have democrats, and democra "light" for political partys currently.
I find it extremely interesting that often I find peopele from both ends, You who say the nation is too RIGHT, and I who say it is too LEFT...agree on libertarianism.
Possibly the problem is, our views of what republicans and democrates really are. I don't completely understand why this is... Obviously we dissagre on that, but Ironicly, we agree on Libertarinism.
Some think a one sided narrow mindset should rule all-be it left or right-but it does not properly address all issues. We need to look at things with a more individual approach that considers the best methods to deal with things.Sometimes the right leaning approach may be better than the left and vice versa. A sail boat tacks into the wind leaning back and forth- left then right but never too much or it will tip over.
Not a good analogy. A sailboat doesnt tip because it has a keel that acts like a hydrofoil and also has weight. The more it is leaning, the faster it is going.
As for politics; what if there were an issue where one side was right, and the other wrong? Would you advocate an even mix of right and wrong?
Yes they do tip over when a strong enough wind comes and overwhelms the sailor who cannot compensate well enough. Ever been on a lake in a sunfish on a gusty day?
As for politics;
As I wrote-Sometimes the right leaning approach may be better than the left and vice versa.
I advocate that situations should be dealt with on a more flexible basis. Adhering to fixed mindsets and plans does not properly address all issues as they occur.
Good quote. However, as a libertarian I don't consider myself the middle of the road which implies an extreme willingness to compromise. I don't compromise my beliefs, they just happen to be made up of a mixture of left and right, not the middle ground between them. I see myself more of the apex pulling upwards the good parts of both parties.
Taking the good and bad and weighing them out while keeping the good and tossing out the bad to maintain proper,well functioning balances is more what I think many like myself have in mind.We need gov-but it needs to be well functioning and in reasonable measure without intruding on us.-What we seem to have is broken gov that keeps intruding on us because of the dysfunctional extremes we keep getting.
And FYI to you no it wasn't. Those rights were considered inherent and thus were not needed to be wrote down, but there was a group of people called anti-federalist that feared the expansion of power. Thus they wanted our rights written down so they could be know and not be eroded over time. Once again you liberals fail to understand history.
Answer me this. Name the actually wording in the Bill of Rights that change or negated any part of the Constitution? None, that's the answer. Now 11 and after did change parts of the main Constitution but the first ten were not changes.. I know it's hard for you liberals to understand this concept but it's like this. The Constitution was written to LIMIT the Federal Government and the Bill of Rights was written to ensure the Fed stays limited. The Bill of Rights CHANGED nothing.
Listen Dumbass; you should should google the Bill of Rights. The first ten are the Bill of Rights which is what you stated, the amendments are 11 and after. You stated the Bill of Rights not the Amendments. 1 through 10 was the Bill of rights and did not change any part of the Constitution but Stated what was inherent within it. 11 through 27 were amendments and were changes.
adding something on to a legal document is changing it. No matter how you want to spin it, it means the original was incomplete and non sufficient to a changing society.
Have you even read the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers? While the Bill of Rights went through the Amendment process. the purpose was not to change anything and indeed no part of the Constitution was changed in their text. The Bill of Rights were statements of our Rights that the Anti-Federalist felt were not stated clearly in the main Constitution. You're trying to argue that we shouldn't be afraid of Obama because of the Bill of Rights which is the most fallacious argument ever.
This would be funny if it wern't so true. Our country is in a bad way. Please vote for a third party in 2010 and in 2012. I am personally for the Libertarians but do what ever works best for you.
Considering that I'm a liberal and work for a free speech non-profit, I think I'm fairly aware of what I believe. We defend extreme conservatives all the time.
I do belive however one amendment needs to go, and thats the 16th amendment. It stiffles the economy and punishes success. A tax systme known as the FairTax is what this country needs.
Dems and Reps can argue until hell freezes over, its about the people not the parties!!
Uhh, no cause political spectrums do not run in left or right. It has to do with how much you believe in economical and personal freedoms. One who is for personal freedoms and economical freedoms is neither liberal or conservative.
EVeryones life is influenced on what we learned, and what we learn from liberal media is that most people follow the crowd, and dont really understand concepts, but still like to believe they do.
I think that's a hell of a convenient excuse for anyone who actually doesn't KNOW much about politics.
I used to use it myself, in fact.
You see everything in black & white. It's not about rooting for a team-it's having beliefs that you have always had-independently on your own-and then finding out others do too.
You counter-mainstream people are a party in yourselves.
You all are lazy about learning about politics-and you cant separate the bs from the stuff that matters. I can. Sorry.
We see everything in black and white? Who is the one advocating that there is only a left and a right side? And that you lean to either white or black but never can be gray? Your being irrational for someone who argues that he knows politics on this assumption.
We "counter-mainstream" are a party of ourselves, yes. But it doesn't hold the values of either the left or the right. Stalin wasn't on the left and Hitler wasn't on the right as most people would like to think of it. stop assuming.
Politicians are self interested, and will take that as a priority. Common people are self interested, but believe that their self interested is justifiable and therefore more good than others.
Obviously you did not understand the video. From a political spectrum, there is always the idea that you want to restrict things. Such as the second amendment. Freedom of speech should be free as long as it suits one person.
You go on and tell yourself all politicians dont serve for their own interest.
Okay-you guys all need to learn what the term straw man means.
Seriously-it's hard to debate people like you because you always tell me I'm someone I'm not .You don't even consider I may actually know something you don't.
I don't believe everything politicians say. I don't believe everything the news says.
I also don't believe everything you say, or everything the counter-mainstream news says.
I just see people. I have my own opinions and I TRUST myself to see through it all.
so your being a hypocrite you say "eriously-it's hard to debate people like you because you always tell me I'm someone I'm not" yet you said I dont know anything about politics, you already make your own assumptions. You try to tell me what I am, by saying I dont know jack :)
This is a common misconception. Constitutionalists do not believe that our rights come from a piece of paper--we believe that our rights are inalienable. Just as the founding fathers held "these truths to be self evident", we understand that civil liberties are inherently just and necessary. We defend the constitution because it is a symbol of the rights to which we are all entitled--not because it is the source.
George Carlin once said I leave symbols to the symbol minded. I don't NEED a paper telling me what I can or cannot do. If I do something and people with guns compromise my action THEN I'm a slave get it?
That "paper" doesnt tell you or George Carlin or anyone else what they can and cant do. It tells the government what it can and cant do. Big difference.
The GOVERNMENT is people with guns. Guess what people with guns tend to do. Exactly! What they want. This idea that the constitution can protect you is absolutely laughable.
The only rights we really have are the ones we are willing to fight for. Power hungry politicians will slowly erode away all of the others. If you look around you, it is happening as we speak. The more money we send to Washington, the less power we have. Money is power in our society.
What would happen if Republicans and Conservatives rallied against Bush? Democrats would have won in 2004 and Democrats would have been elected to do more of what the republicans were accused of doing. It's merely political strategy to have supported Bush. Rallying against a politician doesn't always make a politician change their policies and when it doesn't it usually influences the poli-sphere to elect the other side.
Well, I guess that makes the theft of your liberty by the Patriot Act and all the illegal wiretapping ok then...cuz it would hav emant the Dens getting power...THE HORROR!!!!
The alternative would have been to NOT vote for any of them or take to the streets.
But no, as long as it is for supporting "your side" then its ok to over look this. But still OK to complain about "lefties"
You're making assumptions. Not voting and "taking to the streets" (whatever that means) doesn't change policy and has a chance of electing the other side too unless by taking to the streets you're suggesting revolution or a coup. It's not over looked at all. And yes, it is always ok to complain about the lefties but I don't expect Democrats to do what many here wanted Republicans to do during Bush. It doesn't work the way unless the party was allowed to run against itself.
I dont think the house has has has an approval rating over 15% since the founding of the damn county. Everybody hates it because it is filled with corrupt wack jobs from both parties. They should seriously consider disbanding it, its pretty much a waste of time and money. Sarah Bachmann and Barney Frank are good examples of the morons that somehow get elected.
Yes, very few people realize this. I read the closing arguments against Prop 8 in CA and the idiots opposing it actually said the Supreme Court of CA grants natural rights.
Really? Leftist lawyers are this stupid now. They actually think that the state grants natural rights. Even if it did, defining rights in a constitution (which is collectivist) would require the CA Supreme Court to uphold them. If not, then the CA Supreme Court would be giving whimsical authority over our lives.
"Leftist lawyers" only invent rights to reduce gov't authority over our lives.
For example, Earl Warren's Supreme Court invented the individual right to privacy from the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other enumerated rights. And check the text of the 4th Amendment. According to the text & original intent of the framers, the police DON'T need a warrant to enter your house or search your clothes in public... the warrant requirement is a liberal invention, and we are a BETTER society for it.
The Constitution protects some individual rights, but it was ALSO established to promote "collectivist" ends.
The Preamble (and Article 1, sec. 8) refer to promoting the "general Welfare."
Liberty & property? The 5th & 14th Amends specify that liberty and property can be deprived WITH due process! That's how the federal & state gov'ts can incarcerate, tax, & regulate us.
The 5th also provides that the govt can "take" property for public use against the wishes of the owner. How socialist!
I wish this video were longer. Despite the caricatures, every one of the amendment deletions could be proven with a recent example. 1st and 2nd? where to start? 4th: patriot act 5th: and 6th: gitmo 8th: look up 'jaime thomas riaa' 9th and 10th: again, where to start?
The founding fathers hated democracy and gave you Americans the most amazing gift ever. You see a Republic style of government protects the inaliable rights of a minority, where as a democracy protects only the rights of a majority. A republic style government works but it needs a well informed public to help keep it on the straight and narrow. The failure is not the style of government but the fact that Americans allowed it to be comprimised by a "Central Bank." I believe you will agree with me
It was a rejection of individual liberty and an embracing of democracy that enabled slavery. The majority taking away the rights of the minority - democracy.
For example, if Iraq had an actual democracy, the religious majority there would vote to kill/enslave the minority.
"Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy." - Plato, The Republic.
no the majority of Americans would have voted to END slavery. that is Exactly the reason why they didn't give us the right to make laws as citizens. because we would have outlawed it and we wouldn't have had to GO TO WAR with each other to end it.
"no the majority of Americans would have voted to END slavery."
Citation? Here is one:
Encarta: "Throughout most of the colonial period, opposition to slavery among white Americans was virtually nonexistent. Settlers in the 17th and early 18th centuries came from sharply stratified societies in which the wealthy savagely exploited members of the lower classes."
There didn't need to be a war - Lincoln himself said the civil war was not about slavery. Other nations solved it without civil war.
So if there are 5 people and 4 of vote to beat up the 5th person, steal his money, and then kill him, that shows how democracy "gives you individual freedom"? That's democracy in action.
For example, if Iraq had an actual democracy, the religious majority? there would vote to kill/enslave the minority.
"Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy." - Plato, The Republic.
I'm afraid not. The republic was designed to only allow the goverment the ability to protect your rights and freedoms.
Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, several of the Founding Fathers felt democracies were harmful to the rights and freedoms of any individual.
Emminent domain is a perfect example. What if one day everyone on your street held a vote to own your car or take your house away? That's democracy in action.
please tell me? was the vietnam war protecting us? was the Iraq war protecting us? was keeping slavery legal and it taking an all out WAR to end it protecting us? how in the fucking WORLD is the Government protecting ANY of us from anything? do they protect you from corporate giants like wal mart? do they protect you from global warming? do they protect you from disease? NO they don't they don't protect ANYONE but THEMSELVES!!!
I agree with that entirely. It is in part of the legacy President Truman left us with the Korean War. He decided, without permission from Congress, to send the troops into the Korean War. It established the "Truman Doctrine" which Presidents have used to justify any military operation they choose.
The goverment doesn't want to protect you from any of what you just mentioned. They just want your taxes.
Where do Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians agree? Modern slavery. Labor subjection and immigrant exploitation to where immigrants who come here can "choose" to work for peanuts, live at the plantation, and use the money they earn to pay for the shelter and food the plantation provides.
spock was a utilitarian thug fuck him he would be on the left for sure. the needs of the many out way the needs of the few sounds like populism at its finest!
But, there's a lot of truth to it. These days, more than ever before, the parties are opportunistic backdoor deal making, bribing, blackmailing, sex scandal having, pork pushing, election rigging, Marxist douchebags.
They certainly don't care what the People say. Looks like we gotta take 'em to school - Again.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video illustrates what I like about Libertarians but also why I will never want to be one. What I like; their fringe principles on liberty. What I don't like; their willingness to misrepresent Liberals and Conservatives to where it gets childish. After all, Libertarians are a political party that nominate candidates who seek office like any other party.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy first, a political party second. Plenty of GOPers say they have a libertarian philosophy.
Political satire is not childish; it is in fact a form of high comedy to prove one's point that demands understanding of one's targets to be effective. I think this was excellent satire.
What exactly is "fringe" about supporters Bill of Rights? Not wanting the police to kick down your door for any reason? Not wanting to have poltical speech restrained?
It's fringe because many Libertarians will disregard Federalism if they were elected to a Federal position. If boarder States had a budget surplus and decided to protect it's boarders and enforce State immigration laws, a Federal Libertarian Government would intervene, especially if there was a Federal policy that made boarders private property. Where do Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians agree? Centralization.
Maybe the small minority that support the Libertarian Party, but most libertarians (notice the size of the 'l') don't and don't want nay kind of government.
But that is a well dressed straw man you've created...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm a staunch conservative, I don't really agree with the representation here, but this is only a two minute long video, so to accurately portray anything is about impossible in that time.
The video is just another way of saying that the only difference between conservative authoritarians and liberal authoritairans are their PRIORITIES on what and how much to tax, spend, regulate, prohibit and meddle in.
The Communist Manifesto's in the library. Does that mean the LIBRARY'S
communist?
TheRepub 1 year ago
I swear to God, the majority of liberals on my college look exactly like that guy. Why do they have to wear those retro glasses, beards and horizontally stripped shirts is beyond me. Oh yeah, and those silly Arabian scarves they wear as soon the temperature falls under 20°C. It's like they produce them on the assembly line.
Dodo251 1 year ago
@Dodo251
Ah, see, those people are called "hipsters." Not necessarily liberals, though most hipsters tend to be liberal-leaning.
More of a...modern youth styling. Like baggy pants or whatever the hell the 80's had going for them. I have nothing against the look, but I don't exactly have to see it everywhere I go AND know that they disagree with me politically; I can see how that would sour your view of them.
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@TombaFanatic It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I learned what a 'hipster' is. What a bunch of losers. You should check out a video called 'annoying hipster douchebag', it's hilarious.
Dodo251 1 year ago
-"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."
-"I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking."
-"Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"
SexyMelon 1 year ago 5
Subbed
That was brilliant.
JohnKiller118 1 year ago
of course the liberal looks girly and gay and the conservative looks like a normal person. liberals complain about everything and dont do anything to fix their problems
CannedKoolaid 1 year ago
Oh you nutty libertarians. "Guns don't kill people, the government does"
philosophermike 1 year ago
@philosophermike
Guns are a tool, so guns don't kill people: People use guns to kill people.
The issue is, guns exist. No amount of banning or legal legislation will get rid of them. In fact, banning them is only going to disarm people who obey the law, allowing those who don't care about the law (the one's more likely to rob and kill you) to have more control over you.
Also, governments do kill people. Usually in wars. Often times with guns too!
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@TombaFanatic It is a good pro-gun argument. Allow me to try and counter. Now, I don't have a strong viewpoint on this, I am just taking one side because you took the other. Very few lives have been saved by private gun ownership but very many have been lost by it. Banning guns would not entirely erradicate criminals from owning them but if the legal manufacturing of them for individuals stopped, much FEWER criminals would own guns and thus, the fatality by guns would decrease.
philosophermike 1 year ago
@philosophermike
That is both true and false. While fewer criminals would have guns, those that have them would be able to do much more with them. Furthermore, minor crimes would likely also go up.
Another argument is that it's hard to count how many lives guns have saved, as guns are mostly a preventative measure. A criminal is less likely to break into a house a place where they suspect others could shoot back.
Just my thoughts.
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@TombaFanatic I think most criminals are not reasonable enough to be deterred by the possibility of their victims owning firearms.
philosophermike 1 year ago
@philosophermike
Not quite. Most criminals are just people down on their luck who have no where left to turn. They commit crimes for their life, not to risk it. Others, are career criminals. Will purposely find people they find weak (secluded/no guns). Sure, you will always have the occasional psychopath or dumb teenager, but those only cause so much damage because they often times attack areas where people have no guns.
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@philosophermike
"Very few lives have been saved by private gun ownership but very many have been lost by it."
Your entire premise is wrong. You have no idea how many lives are protected and saved by guns. There is no effort to record such information, and even less effort to report such incidents in the media.
There are 2 people in this house right now that were saved by the use of my legally owned firearm. 1 of which used to be antigun until the real life lesson of self defense was shown.
SeppLainer 8 months ago
@SeppLainer I have an idea. And I am sure there has been plenty of effort to record such information.
philosophermike 8 months ago
liberal and conservative are not political possitions, stop kidding yourselves
evilsceptic 1 year ago
"The First Amendment; Freedom of Speech."
Wait; something is missing...
CountArtha 1 year ago
Comment removed
CountArtha 1 year ago
I will support Libertarians for president. Most recently, that meant advocating a "Republican," Ron Paul. I don't care what party someone's from, just so long as they actually support Liberty. And that's real Liberty, not the euphemism for American Imperialism. Did you really "defend liberty," Mr. Bush?
JETZcorp 1 year ago
@JETZcorp Bush sucked but is Obama any better?? No way. We are on our second worse president. Obama's admin is an absolute disgrace just like W.
fuckinwiseguy 1 year ago
@fuckinwiseguy Where in the hell did I say that Obama was any better? The reason I pointed out Bush was because, as a Republican, some people still actually thing he was big on economic liberty. When Obama does all this stimulus and bullshit, at least it fits in with the public image of this big-government party. I was making a point about claiming to defend liberty whilst actually reducing it. I could just as easily have pointed out Reagan, who was a the king of good rhetoric and bad policy.
JETZcorp 1 year ago
This is soooooo true.
HermiOdleProduction5 1 year ago
Don't forget English only. It isn't free speech if it's in English only.
greenoffspring 1 year ago
What about Arizona's new law? Yeah conservatives do respect the 4th amendment don't they? Conservatives are far more dishonest than liberals at times.
greenoffspring 1 year ago
@greenoffspring Nah i got to disagree. With all due respect, nobody's more full of shit than the pansy, begging-for-acceptance full blown liberal (the Bill Maher type). Almost sad to see sometimes. Now I am not a full conservative at all I do hold some liberal beliefs depending on the issue, its just an honest oberservation.
fuckinwiseguy 1 year ago
Libs belive in nothing. That is what there life is about believing in nothing...
killerbeau95 1 year ago
I agree with PenWolf.
jayatfreelance 1 year ago
By and large, most conservatives (if they're ideological), would never ban any of the 10 Amendments because they understand them. If they want to ban porn or something like that, they do it at the state level because that is in accordance with the 1st Amendment (what is the first sentence in that amendment?). This notion that there is no real difference between the two sides is not only wrong, it's dishonest.
ThePenWolf 1 year ago
Well at least I still have my Third amendment
Darkwizzrobe 2 years ago 2
"Where's the amendment that let's the government run car companies?"
They should just get it over with and make a 28th amendment that says "We can do whatever the F%#* we want, so go piss off!!" Then America will clearly know what it is dealing with and finally act accordingly.
Secede.
Secede.
Secede.
Secede.
Secede.
Secede.
(I hope I'm not being ambiguous.)
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago 5
I don't drink Starbucks, I can get radio for free, and if I want to waste my time reading about how the future will be utopia is we give all our freedom to liberals in government, I can go to the locally funded library and read The Nation.
Americaisgreat123 2 years ago
Love it :)
boxant 2 years ago
I dont believe in Liberal and Conservative it is bullshit... Im a american citizen not a conservative or a liberal... Or Right wing and Left wing bullshit.. It is all bullshit country will never change....
WhatCanIsay100 2 years ago
The left doesn't care about the Bill of Rights. They seek to silence conservative talk radio through the fairness doctrine (1st Amendment violation), they fight to oppress gun rights (2nd Amendment violation), and they constantly oppose the 9th and 10th Amendments. Not to even mention the other amendments and part of the Constitution they desecrate by grossly mis-interpreting them.
I will give them credit where credit is due. They want to grant terrorists these rights.....
Americaisgreat123 2 years ago
Liberals seek to legalize gay marriage, so they DO support the 9th Amendment in that respect...but thats about it.
SemperServiam 2 years ago
People should vote by principle, not party. If a party starts detracting from their values, then vote ind.
Eterna1Soldier 2 years ago 5
I would only add that neither the Republican or the Democrat party have any values. They lost them decades ago.
Their ONLY purpose is to keep themselves in power and any third party OUT. They do this by polarizing the nation and forcing you to vote for a candidate because the other candidate is worse.
People are starting to catch on to this now. Hopefully it will be enough people so that in 2012 both parties crash and burn.
AlbaGoBragh 2 years ago 24
@AlbaGoBragh I don't think they ever had them.
MrFarmer110 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh "People are starting to catch on to this now."
I'd be happy to see some statistics of that.
Not saying you're wrong. I'm just curious on what you're basing that statement on.
JohnKiller118 1 year ago
Why doesn't the "conservative" guy look like a filthy redneck with a bible and a gun? Don't these people know the stereotype that has been so frequent lately? and why didn't he agree when the liberal guy asked "where does it say the government can take over car companies?" republicans have been bailing out auto companies since Regan. Bush couldn't wait to bailout the banks. If you're going to do the fabled "real" conservative you cant put him against the jobless hippy tree-hugger type liberal.
CorndogMaker 2 years ago
The average conservative is more educated than the average liberal. Both my Republican parents have graduate degrees. In fact probably half of my Republican family has a graduate degree.
Americaisgreat123 2 years ago
Recently the conservative steriotype has become the fundamentalist Christian redneck who votes only to keep his gun and cant wait for the end of the world so Jesus can come back as a super hero. With Boris Johnson, Pat Robertson, George Bush and the BNP the most vocal folks on their side, that has become the correct stereotype for them. Voting along with a party is pretty stupid.
CorndogMaker 2 years ago 3
Yes, when I go to the Heritage Foundations website, I definitely get that feeling. When I read William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review, likewise....
Should the liberal stereotype be a stoned college kid living off the welfare of mommy and daddy along side an inner city welfare queen living off the welfare of the government (which I fund)?
Americaisgreat123 2 years ago
Well I think they got the unemployed pinko rich kid with a 3 day beard down okay. Because they weren't as adequate with the "conservative" character it muddies up the joke and betrays a bias.
CorndogMaker 2 years ago
Well, practically all stereotypes have shreds of truth to them for them to exist in the first place, but Republican voters are slightly more educated than Democrat voters. They tend to work in the private sector.
Americaisgreat123 2 years ago
I don't see anyone mocking conservatives by calling them "better educated" and It isn't nearly as funny or acurate to their current political climate.
CorndogMaker 2 years ago
This video is f--king great.
arbide2 2 years ago
Break the false right/left paradigm. As long as people subscribe to their "parties" we'll continue with the infighting and getting nowhere
Ros10 2 years ago
Comment removed
JustAManInAMask 2 years ago
who is the militia? the people in the free State.
protectwethepeople 2 years ago
Comment removed
JustAManInAMask 2 years ago
Actually, Militia's are made up of private citizens that anyone can join, maily not to defend from other people, but to defend against a state with a monopoly on violence and war.
timetraveler3797 2 years ago
ManInAMask-
That's because socialized education has failed to teach you reading comprehension.
old138 2 years ago
Sorry, my friend got access to this account and messed with it. I took down the comments.
JustAManInAMask 2 years ago
Uhm , Im a conservative through and through, and we strongly support the bill of rights, and please dont bring up republicans, they are rarely conservative. I think for you to understand we should switch our name from conservative to constitutionalists. So please dont crap on Independant conservatives, tyvm
samuils 2 years ago
Protection of Rights.
Seiku 2 years ago
"Where's the amendment that lets the president run car companies: ROTFLMAO
rooftopeagle 2 years ago 4
Our government could use some reason-induced round-house kicks from good ol' Chuck.
BIGZAM0079 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
BIGZAM0079 2 years ago
Great video!
NoBSTV 2 years ago
Haha, oh snap!
Mastikator 2 years ago
Oh man that was good...Thanks Drew.
mkloppel 2 years ago
There are actually about 20 rights in the Bill of Rights. There are five rights in the 1st Amendment alone.
CommonSense0822 2 years ago 2
This video would have been better if it were longer and there were discussion on both sides for all the amendments in the BoR's.
OpenCarryNH 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Some think a one sided narrow mindset should rule all-be it left or right-but it does not properly address all issues. We need to look at things with a more individual approach that considers the best methods to deal with things.Sometimes the right leaning approach may be better than the left and vice versa. A sail boat tacks into the wind leaning back and forth- left then right but never too much or it will tip over.
cincinnatusnow 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Libertarians are the biggest tools ever. They talk about civil liberties and all that stuff but then proceed to vote conservative because MY TAX DOLLARS FUCK THE POOR! Then they bitch when their civil liberties being taken away as if they weren't responsible in assisting with the conservatives' rise to power over the past few years.
Joe402 2 years ago
"Conservatives'" rise to power over the past few years. Wow, I guess I missed something.... who are the conservatives??
campbell3c1 2 years ago
"REAL conservatives" suck also
Joe402 2 years ago
You sir are an idiot.
insdel2004 2 years ago
the truth hurts~
Joe402 2 years ago
The freedom of speech is only one of our First Amendment rights.
CountArtha 2 years ago
I like Shanedk's model of where the political parties fit....
watch?v=qAiYlaGxyV0&feature=channel_page
Sam26100 2 years ago
"Where's the amendment that lets the government run car companies?"
Priceless.
dconjar 2 years ago 31
What the hell are we celebrating tomorrow? The fact that we fought British oppression 200 years ago to allow the bankers to own us now? Seems like a hollow victory.
renegade2142 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama's the Antichrist announced by the IL Lottery.
I've gotten death threats for spreading this from heartsfortibet aka LetsNotBeL7 aka haltmusic
(from Freising town, near Munich, Germany) serious stuff and dangerous, report to police, FBI and U Tube.
EndOfTimesApocalypse 2 years ago
LOL nice video. I completely agree.
Sam26100 2 years ago
OBAMA (O)ur (B)iggest (A)sinine (M)istake (A)merica
Rocky32084 2 years ago
The middle of the road is all the usable surface. The extreme, right and left, are in the gutters
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
cincinnatusnow 2 years ago 2
The only problem is there is only the extreme right and the right leaning democrats. There is NO centrist. If Nixon was alive today he would be TOO liberal for the republican party! Kennedy would be call a communist, Eisenhower would be call anti-military, and Reagan a cut and runner!!!
wtfoof 2 years ago 2
Are you kidding?
We have democrats, and democra "light" for political partys currently.
I find it extremely interesting that often I find peopele from both ends, You who say the nation is too RIGHT, and I who say it is too LEFT...agree on libertarianism.
Possibly the problem is, our views of what republicans and democrates really are. I don't completely understand why this is... Obviously we dissagre on that, but Ironicly, we agree on Libertarinism.
nitro169169 2 years ago
Some think a one sided narrow mindset should rule all-be it left or right-but it does not properly address all issues. We need to look at things with a more individual approach that considers the best methods to deal with things.Sometimes the right leaning approach may be better than the left and vice versa. A sail boat tacks into the wind leaning back and forth- left then right but never too much or it will tip over.
cincinnatusnow 2 years ago
Not a good analogy. A sailboat doesnt tip because it has a keel that acts like a hydrofoil and also has weight. The more it is leaning, the faster it is going.
As for politics; what if there were an issue where one side was right, and the other wrong? Would you advocate an even mix of right and wrong?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Yes they do tip over when a strong enough wind comes and overwhelms the sailor who cannot compensate well enough. Ever been on a lake in a sunfish on a gusty day?
As for politics;
As I wrote-Sometimes the right leaning approach may be better than the left and vice versa.
I advocate that situations should be dealt with on a more flexible basis. Adhering to fixed mindsets and plans does not properly address all issues as they occur.
cincinnatusnow 2 years ago
Good quote. However, as a libertarian I don't consider myself the middle of the road which implies an extreme willingness to compromise. I don't compromise my beliefs, they just happen to be made up of a mixture of left and right, not the middle ground between them. I see myself more of the apex pulling upwards the good parts of both parties.
AikidoSaintTKE 2 years ago
Taking the good and bad and weighing them out while keeping the good and tossing out the bad to maintain proper,well functioning balances is more what I think many like myself have in mind.We need gov-but it needs to be well functioning and in reasonable measure without intruding on us.-What we seem to have is broken gov that keeps intruding on us because of the dysfunctional extremes we keep getting.
cincinnatusnow 2 years ago
the bill of rights was all CHANGES to the US CONSTITUTION.. just fyi to republicans complaining about changing the country.
historico69 2 years ago
And FYI to you no it wasn't. Those rights were considered inherent and thus were not needed to be wrote down, but there was a group of people called anti-federalist that feared the expansion of power. Thus they wanted our rights written down so they could be know and not be eroded over time. Once again you liberals fail to understand history.
tegalans 2 years ago
sooo after all that you agreed that the Bill of Rights were all changes to the Constitution.
Maybe next time you should chant 'NO WHAMMY NO WHAMMY NO WHAMMY' before posting.
historico69 2 years ago
Answer me this. Name the actually wording in the Bill of Rights that change or negated any part of the Constitution? None, that's the answer. Now 11 and after did change parts of the main Constitution but the first ten were not changes.. I know it's hard for you liberals to understand this concept but it's like this. The Constitution was written to LIMIT the Federal Government and the Bill of Rights was written to ensure the Fed stays limited. The Bill of Rights CHANGED nothing.
tegalans 2 years ago
you should google the word AMENDMENT.
"A CHANGE or addition to a legal document which, when properly signed, has the same legal power as the original document."
historico69 2 years ago
Listen Dumbass; you should should google the Bill of Rights. The first ten are the Bill of Rights which is what you stated, the amendments are 11 and after. You stated the Bill of Rights not the Amendments. 1 through 10 was the Bill of rights and did not change any part of the Constitution but Stated what was inherent within it. 11 through 27 were amendments and were changes.
tegalans 2 years ago
dude listen,
adding something on to a legal document is changing it. No matter how you want to spin it, it means the original was incomplete and non sufficient to a changing society.
the bible is another good example of this.
historico69 2 years ago
Have you even read the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers? While the Bill of Rights went through the Amendment process. the purpose was not to change anything and indeed no part of the Constitution was changed in their text. The Bill of Rights were statements of our Rights that the Anti-Federalist felt were not stated clearly in the main Constitution. You're trying to argue that we shouldn't be afraid of Obama because of the Bill of Rights which is the most fallacious argument ever.
tegalans 2 years ago
This would be funny if it wern't so true. Our country is in a bad way. Please vote for a third party in 2010 and in 2012. I am personally for the Libertarians but do what ever works best for you.
codeman1979 2 years ago
Thank you for shining light on the fallacy that there is a big polarization b/w dems and republicans, when really they both support BIG government.
candidskeptic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oops. Too bad this demonstrates a remarkable and fundamental lack of understanding of what liberals (and, indeed, the Democratic Party) believe.
Oh, and, by the way? Libertarianism is anything but reasonable.
ohayitsnoah 2 years ago
Spoken like a true fascist.
thomaserossi 2 years ago
...what?
Countercorporatism 2 years ago
Oops. Your comment demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what liberals believe.
mitchblatt1dot1com 2 years ago
Considering that I'm a liberal and work for a free speech non-profit, I think I'm fairly aware of what I believe. We defend extreme conservatives all the time.
Countercorporatism 2 years ago
What is reason?
arcanekrusader 2 years ago
I'm conservative, proud of it!
I do belive however one amendment needs to go, and thats the 16th amendment. It stiffles the economy and punishes success. A tax systme known as the FairTax is what this country needs.
Dems and Reps can argue until hell freezes over, its about the people not the parties!!
BritBoyProductions 2 years ago 2
It's also the one amendment that didn't go through the proper channels to be ratified. It should be abolished.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
I have heard that....I'm a strong advocate of the FairTax....its gaining ground and support amazingly quickly.
BritBoyProductions 2 years ago
Very few people actually admit to being liberal, or conservative. But anyone who follows politics at all LEANS to one side or the other.
"I'm independent" is such bullshit. It's like saying "Oh, I'm not brainwashed, I think for myself.
No shit sherlock, so do I, and when I think for myself, I notice that I am pretty much a liberal.
If I was to actually think conservatives had some good ideas-then I would be brainwashing myself for the sake of not appearing to be brainwashed.
zndprophet 2 years ago
Uhh, no cause political spectrums do not run in left or right. It has to do with how much you believe in economical and personal freedoms. One who is for personal freedoms and economical freedoms is neither liberal or conservative.
EVeryones life is influenced on what we learned, and what we learn from liberal media is that most people follow the crowd, and dont really understand concepts, but still like to believe they do.
mammuru 2 years ago
I think that's a hell of a convenient excuse for anyone who actually doesn't KNOW much about politics.
I used to use it myself, in fact.
You see everything in black & white. It's not about rooting for a team-it's having beliefs that you have always had-independently on your own-and then finding out others do too.
You counter-mainstream people are a party in yourselves.
You all are lazy about learning about politics-and you cant separate the bs from the stuff that matters. I can. Sorry.
zndprophet 2 years ago
We see everything in black and white? Who is the one advocating that there is only a left and a right side? And that you lean to either white or black but never can be gray? Your being irrational for someone who argues that he knows politics on this assumption.
We "counter-mainstream" are a party of ourselves, yes. But it doesn't hold the values of either the left or the right. Stalin wasn't on the left and Hitler wasn't on the right as most people would like to think of it. stop assuming.
mammuru 2 years ago
Here's your black & whites:
Politicians are all completely evil, and want to fuck us over.
Common people are all good, and we all want the same thing.
Am I wrong? Well so are your stereotypes about liberals and conservatives.
The people in this video are charicatures. I don't want to do away with the 2nd amendment. I don't want to do away with freedom of speech.
If we decide politicians are all the same, and are all evil-then we cant tell a difference anymore-and they wil be.
zndprophet 2 years ago
Politicians are self interested, and will take that as a priority. Common people are self interested, but believe that their self interested is justifiable and therefore more good than others.
Obviously you did not understand the video. From a political spectrum, there is always the idea that you want to restrict things. Such as the second amendment. Freedom of speech should be free as long as it suits one person.
You go on and tell yourself all politicians dont serve for their own interest.
mammuru 2 years ago
Okay-you guys all need to learn what the term straw man means.
Seriously-it's hard to debate people like you because you always tell me I'm someone I'm not .You don't even consider I may actually know something you don't.
I don't believe everything politicians say. I don't believe everything the news says.
I also don't believe everything you say, or everything the counter-mainstream news says.
I just see people. I have my own opinions and I TRUST myself to see through it all.
zndprophet 2 years ago
so your being a hypocrite you say "eriously-it's hard to debate people like you because you always tell me I'm someone I'm not" yet you said I dont know anything about politics, you already make your own assumptions. You try to tell me what I am, by saying I dont know jack :)
mammuru 2 years ago
What does New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez have to do with this?
RappieTS 2 years ago
Fuck the constitution. That's religiosity to think rights come from paper.
ocelot814 2 years ago
This is a common misconception. Constitutionalists do not believe that our rights come from a piece of paper--we believe that our rights are inalienable. Just as the founding fathers held "these truths to be self evident", we understand that civil liberties are inherently just and necessary. We defend the constitution because it is a symbol of the rights to which we are all entitled--not because it is the source.
LPBguy 2 years ago
George Carlin once said I leave symbols to the symbol minded. I don't NEED a paper telling me what I can or cannot do. If I do something and people with guns compromise my action THEN I'm a slave get it?
ocelot814 2 years ago
That "paper" doesnt tell you or George Carlin or anyone else what they can and cant do. It tells the government what it can and cant do. Big difference.
megamaniac76 2 years ago
The GOVERNMENT is people with guns. Guess what people with guns tend to do. Exactly! What they want. This idea that the constitution can protect you is absolutely laughable.
ocelot814 2 years ago
Eisenhower was correct when he described the left and the right as the gutters.Extremes are what cause all the problems.
cincinnatusnow 2 years ago
I like the way they portrayed them dressing the way the portray each other
CAGamble 2 years ago
The only rights we really have are the ones we are willing to fight for. Power hungry politicians will slowly erode away all of the others. If you look around you, it is happening as we speak. The more money we send to Washington, the less power we have. Money is power in our society.
bertly71 2 years ago 4
pUH-LEEZE! True right-winger wouldn't stand for so much sloppy crossing off of freedoms!
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
They didn't seem to mind when Bush was doing it for 8 years...
johnycannuk 2 years ago
What would happen if Republicans and Conservatives rallied against Bush? Democrats would have won in 2004 and Democrats would have been elected to do more of what the republicans were accused of doing. It's merely political strategy to have supported Bush. Rallying against a politician doesn't always make a politician change their policies and when it doesn't it usually influences the poli-sphere to elect the other side.
VonHOG 2 years ago
Well, I guess that makes the theft of your liberty by the Patriot Act and all the illegal wiretapping ok then...cuz it would hav emant the Dens getting power...THE HORROR!!!!
The alternative would have been to NOT vote for any of them or take to the streets.
But no, as long as it is for supporting "your side" then its ok to over look this. But still OK to complain about "lefties"
The cognitive dissonance is amazing...really.
IOKIYAAC...
johnycannuk 2 years ago
You're making assumptions. Not voting and "taking to the streets" (whatever that means) doesn't change policy and has a chance of electing the other side too unless by taking to the streets you're suggesting revolution or a coup. It's not over looked at all. And yes, it is always ok to complain about the lefties but I don't expect Democrats to do what many here wanted Republicans to do during Bush. It doesn't work the way unless the party was allowed to run against itself.
VonHOG 2 years ago
Besides, Bush's approval ratings at the end show that we DID mind after all.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
Not enough, apparently, to not vote for him...
johnycannuk 2 years ago
So you skipped reading VonHOG's comment, did you? Read it and consider your last comment.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
You know what was lower than Bush's approval rating? Congress' approval ratings after the Democrats took over
drummer703 2 years ago 4
I dont think the house has has has an approval rating over 15% since the founding of the damn county. Everybody hates it because it is filled with corrupt wack jobs from both parties. They should seriously consider disbanding it, its pretty much a waste of time and money. Sarah Bachmann and Barney Frank are good examples of the morons that somehow get elected.
Thespartan18 2 years ago
That's very true
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
And that's nothing for either party to be proud of. Vote libertarian.
LPBguy 2 years ago
I may just do so!
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
The Bill of Rights gives us absolutely no rights.
Demanding our government follow the Bill of Rights is what gives us rights, or used to.
idahoMW 2 years ago 5
Yes, very few people realize this. I read the closing arguments against Prop 8 in CA and the idiots opposing it actually said the Supreme Court of CA grants natural rights.
Really? Leftist lawyers are this stupid now. They actually think that the state grants natural rights. Even if it did, defining rights in a constitution (which is collectivist) would require the CA Supreme Court to uphold them. If not, then the CA Supreme Court would be giving whimsical authority over our lives.
thomaserossi 2 years ago 4
"Leftist lawyers" only invent rights to reduce gov't authority over our lives.
For example, Earl Warren's Supreme Court invented the individual right to privacy from the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other enumerated rights. And check the text of the 4th Amendment. According to the text & original intent of the framers, the police DON'T need a warrant to enter your house or search your clothes in public... the warrant requirement is a liberal invention, and we are a BETTER society for it.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
The Constitution protects some individual rights, but it was ALSO established to promote "collectivist" ends.
The Preamble (and Article 1, sec. 8) refer to promoting the "general Welfare."
Liberty & property? The 5th & 14th Amends specify that liberty and property can be deprived WITH due process! That's how the federal & state gov'ts can incarcerate, tax, & regulate us.
The 5th also provides that the govt can "take" property for public use against the wishes of the owner. How socialist!
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
I wish this video were longer. Despite the caricatures, every one of the amendment deletions could be proven with a recent example. 1st and 2nd? where to start? 4th: patriot act 5th: and 6th: gitmo 8th: look up 'jaime thomas riaa' 9th and 10th: again, where to start?
sergeantcortez 2 years ago
iF YOU DON'T LIKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS FIND SOME OTHER COUNTRY TO LIVE IN JERK OFF!!!
sonatadude 2 years ago
I am glad we can all agree on the third amendment.
interstate317 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we agree on a lot more then That. thats why we should be a DEMOCRACY instead of just another crooked republipuke
0ldhack 2 years ago
The founding fathers hated democracy and gave you Americans the most amazing gift ever. You see a Republic style of government protects the inaliable rights of a minority, where as a democracy protects only the rights of a majority. A republic style government works but it needs a well informed public to help keep it on the straight and narrow. The failure is not the style of government but the fact that Americans allowed it to be comprimised by a "Central Bank." I believe you will agree with me
albertaspartan2009 2 years ago 6
What the hell does a bank have to do with any of this?
sergeantcortez 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they hated democracy because they LOVED owning SLAVES and KILLING indians.
some heros you've got there. Why not worship Jeffrey Dahmer while you're at it?
0ldhack 2 years ago
It was a rejection of individual liberty and an embracing of democracy that enabled slavery. The majority taking away the rights of the minority - democracy.
For example, if Iraq had an actual democracy, the religious majority there would vote to kill/enslave the minority.
"Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy." - Plato, The Republic.
RonPaulR3VOLUTION 2 years ago 2
Obviously democracy has nothing to do with slavery: Slavery has been universal and democracy very rare. Really simple.
bagoh20 2 years ago
Democracy
1. The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
The decision to allow slavery falls under that definition.
RonPaulR3VOLUTION 2 years ago
no the majority of Americans would have voted to END slavery. that is Exactly the reason why they didn't give us the right to make laws as citizens. because we would have outlawed it and we wouldn't have had to GO TO WAR with each other to end it.
0ldhack 2 years ago
"no the majority of Americans would have voted to END slavery."
Citation? Here is one:
Encarta: "Throughout most of the colonial period, opposition to slavery among white Americans was virtually nonexistent. Settlers in the 17th and early 18th centuries came from sharply stratified societies in which the wealthy savagely exploited members of the lower classes."
There didn't need to be a war - Lincoln himself said the civil war was not about slavery. Other nations solved it without civil war.
RonPaulR3VOLUTION 2 years ago
democracy is what GIVES you individual freedom. the republic takes your freedom away and gives it to politicians.
"freedom is participation in power" - Cicero.
0ldhack 2 years ago
"democracy is what GIVES you individual freedom."
So if there are 5 people and 4 of vote to beat up the 5th person, steal his money, and then kill him, that shows how democracy "gives you individual freedom"? That's democracy in action.
For example, if Iraq had an actual democracy, the religious majority? there would vote to kill/enslave the minority.
"Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy." - Plato, The Republic.
RonPaulR3VOLUTION 2 years ago 6
I'm afraid not. The republic was designed to only allow the goverment the ability to protect your rights and freedoms.
Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, several of the Founding Fathers felt democracies were harmful to the rights and freedoms of any individual.
Emminent domain is a perfect example. What if one day everyone on your street held a vote to own your car or take your house away? That's democracy in action.
Kapan60 2 years ago 4
HOW IS THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTING US!
please tell me? was the vietnam war protecting us? was the Iraq war protecting us? was keeping slavery legal and it taking an all out WAR to end it protecting us? how in the fucking WORLD is the Government protecting ANY of us from anything? do they protect you from corporate giants like wal mart? do they protect you from global warming? do they protect you from disease? NO they don't they don't protect ANYONE but THEMSELVES!!!
0ldhack 2 years ago
I agree with that entirely. It is in part of the legacy President Truman left us with the Korean War. He decided, without permission from Congress, to send the troops into the Korean War. It established the "Truman Doctrine" which Presidents have used to justify any military operation they choose.
The goverment doesn't want to protect you from any of what you just mentioned. They just want your taxes.
Kapan60 2 years ago
Where do Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians agree? Modern slavery. Labor subjection and immigrant exploitation to where immigrants who come here can "choose" to work for peanuts, live at the plantation, and use the money they earn to pay for the shelter and food the plantation provides.
VonHOG 2 years ago
Fuck the left, fuck the right. When will someone create a LOGIC party? I vote Spock as President!
ghostgate82 2 years ago 4
Spock is just Leonard Piekoff with pointed ears. :)
ComradeLaissezFaire 2 years ago
spock was a utilitarian thug fuck him he would be on the left for sure. the needs of the many out way the needs of the few sounds like populism at its finest!
noobrigde 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Coon, Coon.
Black Baboon.
Brutal, Worthless,
Thieving Goon.
Often High, Thrives In Jail,
His Welfare Check Is In The Mail!
RaceTraitorsBeware 2 years ago
Fuck you NAZI!
albertaspartan2009 2 years ago
Fuck you race traitor!
RaceTraitorsBeware 2 years ago
You are a detestable human being. Stop Destroying My Country.
Max20854 2 years ago
Stop destroying my race.
RaceTraitorsBeware 2 years ago
Happy Canada Day!
Yarcofin 2 years ago
Mmmm... Stereotypey.
But, there's a lot of truth to it. These days, more than ever before, the parties are opportunistic backdoor deal making, bribing, blackmailing, sex scandal having, pork pushing, election rigging, Marxist douchebags.
They certainly don't care what the People say. Looks like we gotta take 'em to school - Again.
haypenny 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video illustrates what I like about Libertarians but also why I will never want to be one. What I like; their fringe principles on liberty. What I don't like; their willingness to misrepresent Liberals and Conservatives to where it gets childish. After all, Libertarians are a political party that nominate candidates who seek office like any other party.
VonHOG 2 years ago
Libertarianism is a political philosophy first, a political party second. Plenty of GOPers say they have a libertarian philosophy.
Political satire is not childish; it is in fact a form of high comedy to prove one's point that demands understanding of one's targets to be effective. I think this was excellent satire.
What exactly is "fringe" about supporters Bill of Rights? Not wanting the police to kick down your door for any reason? Not wanting to have poltical speech restrained?
FAIL
PEinHK 2 years ago 5
It's fringe because many Libertarians will disregard Federalism if they were elected to a Federal position. If boarder States had a budget surplus and decided to protect it's boarders and enforce State immigration laws, a Federal Libertarian Government would intervene, especially if there was a Federal policy that made boarders private property. Where do Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians agree? Centralization.
VonHOG 2 years ago
Libertarian are for centralization?
Maybe the small minority that support the Libertarian Party, but most libertarians (notice the size of the 'l') don't and don't want nay kind of government.
But that is a well dressed straw man you've created...
johnycannuk 2 years ago
LOL!! Nice Job.
carolyncriss 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm a staunch conservative, I don't really agree with the representation here, but this is only a two minute long video, so to accurately portray anything is about impossible in that time.
Oranje101 2 years ago
The video is just another way of saying that the only difference between conservative authoritarians and liberal authoritairans are their PRIORITIES on what and how much to tax, spend, regulate, prohibit and meddle in.
ComradeLaissezFaire 2 years ago 3