does anyone know Thilo Sarrazin on here? He said a lot of things about germany, many of which are very true and needed to be said for a long time Imho. He was politically killed for disregarding "political correctness".
What Obummer REALLY wanted to say was: "America is changing.... I will personally SEE to it myself!" Commie bastard. Gee, I wonder WHY America seems 'arrogant' toward wanting to 'PARTNER' with EU?!!! Maybe because, oh I don't know... maybe we are concerned that our dwindling FREEDOM/ LIBERTY could be compromised somewhere along the way?!!! And freedom of SPEECH taken away as well?! NO THANKS. YOU KEEP YOUR SOCIALISM/ COMMUNISM..... BUT GIVE ME FREEDOM. LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!
.... When Obama says "understand the leadership of Europe" you have to go deeper; economically, militarily, religiously, culturally and so on, not just on the freedom of speech problem, because each country has got its on flaws. If we would associate those flaws to each ally country imagine where will get to.
I understand your point on repudiating the way many European countries opress the freedom of speech of individuals. But you can't use a phrase so generic and broad to state that he's supporting all of these actions taken against freedom of speech....
I was wondering, do you describe yourself as a libertarian?
But at least that in many European countries, they grant more rights to homosexuals and other racial and religious minorities than in the United States (the U.S. is heading to the direction of that of Saudi Arabia, only to establish Christianity as the state religion instead). I think we need to accept the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
The end of this system is eminent!! Rev speaks about the times where living in now. The harlot Babylon the great ( all false religion) will soon be trampled over by the Wild Beast ( United Nations) Beware everyone this system is near its end!!!!
@meheale You got THAT right! As often as I keep reminding myself that this "fundamental transformation of Amerika" bullsh#t is happening this very moment, (and in SPITE of the will of the MAJORITY of "The People").... I have to see these unfolding events as Biblical as well. This all could very well be "end days" we're living. The Revelation coming to pass.... (I can just imagine the coming immature, atheist comments)
The US is fucked but Europe is almost gone for good. I can not imagine a worse nightmare than living in a muslim country under sharia law and these stupid fucks are bringing this here.
I hate this BO's speech - apologizing for USA, where millions are trying to go to. His charisma and ability to read teleprompters has vaulted him high above where he belongs - he is the most radical disciple of Alinsky. And why is all of Europe cowtowling to Muslims? BO lied - said he didn't bow to Saudi king.
There was a muslim cleric (I forget his name) kicked out of the U.K for his public speechs encouraging terrorism and hatred for the Christian population of England. Now youll probably say that he was denied his right for free speech and I agree, and rightly so. I dont believe in free speech when your using that god given right to encourage violence and murder.
As for the president way of speaking and leading off many of his sentences with some shit about "Let me be clear...", it's really beginning to annoy me. Anyone else annoyed by it? And it's especially annoying me that many other outspoken idiots have adopted the same way to preface a statement that you supposedly realy NEED to hear.
So, let me be very clear, here: has anyone else noticed this copying of president Obama's stylistic attention-grabbing bullshit ? Anyone else bothered by it?
It's high time to abandon the UN and replace it with an expanded United States. No, not through empire-building but, rather, through an effort to promote the values of the USA by accepting all would-be and voluntary newcomers through Article IV, secitions 3 and 4 of our Constitution. It would be a hell of a lot more sane to maintain our freedoms (though seemingly on the wane) rather than just lose them all - and our sovereignty - to a collection of asshats vying for global government with teeth.
You're a terrorist and I hope someday you'll understand that a major governing and policing body independent of any particular government is needed for the planet. Granted, the UN isn't perfect but if I have to choose between the UN and global anarchy I choose UN. While it used to be possible for countries to just do what they want and mind their own business, improvements in technology and science ensure that that's no longer the case. That's why we need a global governing body.
"Granted, the UN isn't perfect but if I have to choose between the UN and global anarchy I choose UN."
Did I write anything about anarchy? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
"That's why we need a global governing body. "
So that we could begin adopting the policies of the third world dictatorships instead of the policies the developed this country? You're not very bright, are you?
I called you a terrorist mainly to provoke you. I said GLOBAL anarchy, not the anarchy of any particular country. For example if the federal government suddenly disappeared the US could be called an anarchy as a whole even though each state would retain it's state government.
"So that we could begin adopting the policies of the third world dictatorships instead of the policies the developed this country?"
You were thg one who wrote that the world needs [actually wrote 'we need'] a global governing body. As if the framework of the United States is inferior to what a global body could come up with given the composition of what the world's governments have to offer.
UN sanctions forced the removal of apartheid in South Africa. UN relief agencies and peacekeepers can be seen working in almost all the world's trouble spots. Various UN programmes have brought succor and development to many developing nations. If something better is coming along I'm all for disbanding UN.
"UN sanctions forced the removal of apartheid in South Africa. UN relief agencies and peacekeepers can be seen working in almost all the world's trouble spots. Various UN programmes have brought succor and development to many developing nations."
Hmm, tell me, then, what your thoughts are on UN Security Council Resolution 1441?
Also countries today wield much more power than in the past. It's very easy for a country to make decisions that have consequences outside their borders. In such situation it's better to have a 3rd party settle the dispute than risk conflict and war.
"Also countries today wield much more power than in the past."
Countries or governments of those countries.
"It's very easy for a country to make decisions that have consequences outside their borders."
There's nothing new here. And also consider that it's very easy for a group of countries to strong arm a soveriegn country, creating consequences within a country's borders by an outside influence with no business messing with a sovereign people.
"In such situation it's better to have a 3rd party settle the dispute than risk conflict and war."
This has merit as long as the membership in the governmental body is voluntary and can be rescinded. But let's just see how committed you are to the principle by answering the following question: how do you feel about the 3rd party disputes undertaken by the WTO? How do you view the WTO? Do you like the fact that the organization promotes trade, exchange, private property [aka capitalism]?
"As if the framework of the United States is inferior to what a global body could come up with given the composition of what the world's governments have to offer."
Are you saying the UN should be disbanded and the USA should carry out it's role?
"Hmm, tell me, then, what your thoughts are on UN Security Council Resolution 1441"
I don't know enough to have an informed opinion but it was NOT an endorsement of military action.
"it's very easy for a group of countries to strong arm a soveriegn country, creating consequences within a country's borders by an outside influence with no business messing with a sovereign people."
Right. Fortunately in the UN that sovereign country has it's say and can persuade others to it's side while in a scenario you're proposing everyone strong enough just takes what he wants by force.
"how do you feel about the 3rd party disputes undertaken by the WTO? How do you view the WTO? Do you like the fact that the organization promotes trade, exchange, private property [aka capitalism]?"
I don't know much about it but I can see where you're going with this. If you suspect that I have leftist leaning and therefore should feel threatened by WTO thereby exposing my hypocrisy, you're sorely mistaken. People are not that simple.
I honestly don't feel threatened by WTO. I want the rich to pay much higher % income tax than the poor and from what little I know I don't see WTO as an impediment to achieving this goal. Now I know that americans go mental whenever they hear things like this (OMG SOCIALISM!!!) but relax I don't live in the US. I don't feel like explaining myself but contrary to what many think, merely taxing heavily the rich doesn't mean big government.
"I want the rich to pay much higher % income tax than the poor"
I guess it's becuase this provides the best way for the central planners to put incentives in place so that 'the rich' continue to create value and income-producing opportunities for the non-rich, right?
"...merely taxing heavily the rich doesn't mean big government. "
So true! If the tax rates are set higher than the optimal amount, the government will actually collect less revenue in which to grow itself with.
You aren't telling me anything I didn't hear a hundred times over. I'm not here to explain myself, especially to someone who wouldn't listen. RELAX I'm not an american, your precious capitalism is safe from my evil dirty commie hands.
"You heard it but were you listening? Or maybe you listened but didn't find it compeling."
The latter. I used to be a libertarian (proportional tax, individual liberty). I'm still a libertarian but only when it comes to social issues (individual liberty). That's what I meant when I said you wouldn't listen.
"I used to be a libertarian (proportional tax, individual liberty). I'm still a libertarian but only when it comes to social issues (individual liberty)."
So, whereas you used to be completely for liberty and freedom, now you're just half authoritarian? I think I understand but I wouldn't want to make any assumptions, now, without you confirming this for me, first.
"That's what I meant when I said you wouldn't listen."
No, I'm still listening; it's just me who is not compelled this time
I mentioned I want high taxes for the rich and you immediately assumed a lot more about me. I know that americans have this reactionary knee jerk response to every sign of what they perceive as 'socialism' and I understand that. If I were brought up in a culture whose enemy for half a century was communism I would probably also think like that.
So, you're not very bright AND you project onto me the very attitudes that you harbor [knee-jerk reactionary]. Let's not forget how you opened dialogue with me here - if that wasn't knee-jerk [more jerk than knee, of course] I don't know what else is.
"I mentioned I want high taxes for the rich and you immediately assumed a lot more about me."
Specifically, what assumptions did I make and communicate through writing after you stated your positions on taxation? Again, reading comprehension.
I called you a terrorist to provoke you. It wasn't knee jerk. But this conversation drifted away from the discussion about the UN and I'm not willing to go in this direction. Overall you made a lot more assumptions about me than I made about you. Now on top of being against personal liberty I'm big-government half-authoritarian(?). Progressive tax leading to big government is simply a non-sequitur. I don't want to explain myself here under 500 char limit.
To some degree, it worked. And you used this language simply because I suggested that other nations disbanding their governments and voluntarialy asking to be admitted under section 3 & 4 of Artcle IV of the Constitution, would more desireable? No assumptions there, huh?
"...I'm not willing to go in this direction."
Then don't! It's your life, I don't wish to manipulate it [even though the feeling MAY not be mutual...sorry; assumptions, ya know
"Overall you made a lot more assumptions about me than I made about you."
I really only made one: that you would be a hypocrit and disavow the WTO because of their stated goals while, at the same time, extolling the 'virtues' of the UN. Name the others I've made then examine your own assumptions about me and we'll see If you would want to correct yourself. Do you have integrity?
"Progressive tax leading to big government is simply a non-sequitur."
Really? Okay. But only because you don't want to go in that direction,right?
"I don't want to explain myself here under 500 char limit."
Well, I WOULD 'listen' if you did! Truth is though, I don't really want you to explain yourself here, either. You are, however, free to do what you like as long as the guy who operates this account doesn't mind it.
I do apologize for all of these replies [damned 500 character limit, as you brought up]. But, since I'm provoked, and that was you intended goal ["I called you a terrorist to provoke you."], have you thought about changing your alias to something else very similar? Perhaps replacing the "n" for a "k" and adding an "s" to the end. Food for thought and just returning the provocation.
Your other knee jerk implicit assumptions are the ones I listed (that I'm for big government, half-authoritarian and against liberty). I answered your question about WTO and then in a risky manner answered your following question (about being coy). That's when productive conversation ended in my view. By merely mentioning progressive taxation I opened an entire floodgate of memetic feedback which I fully expected if you read my previous comments.
I'll forget the comment regarding taxation. I'll forget that the WTO seems to be fine with you as long as you do not feel threatened by it. I'll forget that you used to be for complete liberty but now are just for the social liberties. I'll even foget that you've accused me of writing my assumptions I have of you even though I have not written of them.
At this point, I am willing to let you shape the discussion and presumably write about the UN. How does this grab you? I'm listening!
High taxes is crap. It is used as a way to wage classist war fare and divide us. What government should do is tighten it's belt and quit being frivolous with our dollars. Tax burdens should be lowered during this economic down turn not increased. Further Protectionism should be encouraged. considering that for the past 20 years more jobs have wen overseas than came in. Unless you prefer making minimum wage at mcdonalds.
Actually the WTO has no track record of ever protecting individual property rights. Needless to say they will protect corporate property rights but the rights of the individual mean very little to them. You should read more on the WTO. They have done more to disenfranchise small business than any other group.
The WTO simply tries to liberalize trade between nations and adopts mechanisms -- that member nations agree to -- that make it unwise to practice protectionism: as if protectionism were not unwise enough. The only reason why protectionism is attractive is because far too many people prefer job security while being xenophobic...politicians just cater to the populism even though most know its damaging effects in the longer run. The WTO DOES NOT concern itself with commerce at the micro level.
I once asked a Protest Minister, a Catholic Priest and a Jewish Rabbi, "Do you think God forgave King David? They all replied yes, but the Rabbi went even further. "He admitted he was wrong and he was genuinely sorry. We could use someone like King David today instead of the polititions we have". That Rabbi was right! King David had fortitude! A leader with fortitude would send the U.N. packing.
This can be twisted in so many ways. If I say poo is islam and then I say I don't like the smell of poo am I critisizing Islam?
Who are the goverment to say which words mean what in made up languages. If that law covers all languages make up your own to start critisizing them. See how funny the head lines will be when you get arrested for saying you don't like the smell of poo. When poo means Islam.
I still view the UK (and several European countries) as one of the world's leaders of Freedom. This is why I made this video--because the movement to stifle free speech in Europe is concerning precisely because they are free countries.
I didn't talk about Iran and their myriad of human rights violations because I don't view Iran as a "leader of freedom" in the slightest.
We ought to be vigilant that the true leaders of freedom remain free.
I was talking about the NPD in Germany for example, who is allowed to exist but not given much stage. And whenever somebody of them acts fascist, they are arrested, like their latest leader a few weeks ago.
I think this is a good 'stifle' of free speech, seriously. when it comes to Islam criticism the actors quasi forbid themselves because they allways cooperate with nazis, because they have the same aim.
We seem to have a difference in our fundamental ideals.
I think if someone wants to be an advocate for fascism (singe-party state, corporatist economy, etc) than they should be allowed to do so. However, very large parts of fascism directly relate to social/racial purity & violence as mainstream--of course, advocating direct violence is equal to violent acts themselves, and therefore out-of-line.
However, it is paramount not to confuse "community tension" with "incitement to violence".
I now understand the real issue: Fascist powers should be fought against but we actually have to be carefull who says who is fascist and who's not. In our enthusiasm we could easily be conviced to fight against 'the good guys'.
I'll keep that in mind, thank you very much!
But I from Germany can say...we can't allow any fascism whatsoever for everyone knows what reason...It's of course different in other countries.
I fully understand Germany's reluctance for any tolerance of those types of views. Neo-nazis here in America are allowed to peacefully assemble and preach their ideals all day long. In Germany, I fully understand the reluctance of allowing that... but Germany is no longer fascist--they are a free country, and should act as such.
I recognize the difference between nations, and not everything is the same. But I guess I'm saying fundamental rights, such a free speech, should not be violated.
You might be right about Mexicans but europe does not have 66 years. 20-25 is probably max and the riots and militias and amputations and stonings will start well before that.
Europe is becoming fascist. They would even have us become fascist. As George Carlan once stated, "Fascism will not come with a swastika next time around it will be a smiley face" Nuff said Nanny states are pathetic.
That's the problem with British common law. The judicial system practically makes the law on a case to case basis. It all becomes dependent on the opinion of the judge.
A very good video. I think you raise a very important issue. Europe's selectivity in recognizing free speech is reprehensible. However, I will say that many of America's unilateral (and often idiotic) policies have disgraced us in front of the international community.
I think both the US and Europe are guilty of embracing short-sighted solutions to complex problems. I totally agree with you about not adapting Europe's policy on censorship.
Indeed. I view much of Europe (such as the UK) as leaders of freedom in the world. This is why I think it's a big problem when they stifle free speech. This movement is highly concerning.
When Islamic countries stifle free speech, it's not nearly as "concerning", since I don't view those countries as role-models for freedom. (the people of such countries deserve freedom, I'm just saying that it doesn't act as a role model for the world to follow).
Could be but his choice of word "Appreciates"... It does not always mean Agrees or likes, it may mean aware. It is ambiguous that way. Most people think appreciate means like... I appreciate you... Could be a compliment or a just acknowledgement (masquerading as a compliment, which I think this is).
On the other hand: New World Order And Obama is not the guy to stop it but the guy to bring it to it's final phase LOL..
The US needs to remain Sovereign from the mindset of Europe. Britain is a breath away of burning books, regulating free speech on the internet, and imprisoning dissenting voices.
Fuck governments, countries, politics, politicians, people and this fucking planet. I hate it all, all pointless and shit.
DrDerpwerth 1 month ago
>LOOOL
cumbas 2 months ago
does anyone know Thilo Sarrazin on here? He said a lot of things about germany, many of which are very true and needed to be said for a long time Imho. He was politically killed for disregarding "political correctness".
1t2t3t4t5t6t7 8 months ago
Religion isnt even important.
I respect that people beleive in a god but personally i dont, as long as no one forces something upon me then its fine.
CallumJ230 1 year ago
fuck the government!
Pumpkinstubbz420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Government agents seize Oath Keepers couple's newborn from hospital in New Hampshire.
Wintertime7 1 year ago
What Obummer REALLY wanted to say was: "America is changing.... I will personally SEE to it myself!" Commie bastard. Gee, I wonder WHY America seems 'arrogant' toward wanting to 'PARTNER' with EU?!!! Maybe because, oh I don't know... maybe we are concerned that our dwindling FREEDOM/ LIBERTY could be compromised somewhere along the way?!!! And freedom of SPEECH taken away as well?! NO THANKS. YOU KEEP YOUR SOCIALISM/ COMMUNISM..... BUT GIVE ME FREEDOM. LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!
recyclecongress 1 year ago
.... When Obama says "understand the leadership of Europe" you have to go deeper; economically, militarily, religiously, culturally and so on, not just on the freedom of speech problem, because each country has got its on flaws. If we would associate those flaws to each ally country imagine where will get to.
chacinluisalfonzo 1 year ago
I understand your point on repudiating the way many European countries opress the freedom of speech of individuals. But you can't use a phrase so generic and broad to state that he's supporting all of these actions taken against freedom of speech....
chacinluisalfonzo 1 year ago
What is this all about?
i come from the UK , why is people dissing europe?
kerrym93 2 years ago
Comment removed
kerrym93 2 years ago
I was wondering, do you describe yourself as a libertarian?
But at least that in many European countries, they grant more rights to homosexuals and other racial and religious minorities than in the United States (the U.S. is heading to the direction of that of Saudi Arabia, only to establish Christianity as the state religion instead). I think we need to accept the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
Dpaladinx 2 years ago
The end of this system is eminent!! Rev speaks about the times where living in now. The harlot Babylon the great ( all false religion) will soon be trampled over by the Wild Beast ( United Nations) Beware everyone this system is near its end!!!!
meheale 2 years ago
@meheale You got THAT right! As often as I keep reminding myself that this "fundamental transformation of Amerika" bullsh#t is happening this very moment, (and in SPITE of the will of the MAJORITY of "The People").... I have to see these unfolding events as Biblical as well. This all could very well be "end days" we're living. The Revelation coming to pass.... (I can just imagine the coming immature, atheist comments)
recyclecongress 1 year ago 2
great video
kisurfer 2 years ago
The US is fucked but Europe is almost gone for good. I can not imagine a worse nightmare than living in a muslim country under sharia law and these stupid fucks are bringing this here.
FrankinHolland 2 years ago
I hate this BO's speech - apologizing for USA, where millions are trying to go to. His charisma and ability to read teleprompters has vaulted him high above where he belongs - he is the most radical disciple of Alinsky. And why is all of Europe cowtowling to Muslims? BO lied - said he didn't bow to Saudi king.
3martijns 2 years ago
There was a muslim cleric (I forget his name) kicked out of the U.K for his public speechs encouraging terrorism and hatred for the Christian population of England. Now youll probably say that he was denied his right for free speech and I agree, and rightly so. I dont believe in free speech when your using that god given right to encourage violence and murder.
Jkl9559 2 years ago
As for the president way of speaking and leading off many of his sentences with some shit about "Let me be clear...", it's really beginning to annoy me. Anyone else annoyed by it? And it's especially annoying me that many other outspoken idiots have adopted the same way to preface a statement that you supposedly realy NEED to hear.
So, let me be very clear, here: has anyone else noticed this copying of president Obama's stylistic attention-grabbing bullshit ? Anyone else bothered by it?
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
It's high time to abandon the UN and replace it with an expanded United States. No, not through empire-building but, rather, through an effort to promote the values of the USA by accepting all would-be and voluntary newcomers through Article IV, secitions 3 and 4 of our Constitution. It would be a hell of a lot more sane to maintain our freedoms (though seemingly on the wane) rather than just lose them all - and our sovereignty - to a collection of asshats vying for global government with teeth.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
You're a terrorist and I hope someday you'll understand that a major governing and policing body independent of any particular government is needed for the planet. Granted, the UN isn't perfect but if I have to choose between the UN and global anarchy I choose UN. While it used to be possible for countries to just do what they want and mind their own business, improvements in technology and science ensure that that's no longer the case. That's why we need a global governing body.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"You're a terrorist ..."
Can you explain that one to me?
"Granted, the UN isn't perfect but if I have to choose between the UN and global anarchy I choose UN."
Did I write anything about anarchy? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
"That's why we need a global governing body. "
So that we could begin adopting the policies of the third world dictatorships instead of the policies the developed this country? You're not very bright, are you?
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
I called you a terrorist mainly to provoke you. I said GLOBAL anarchy, not the anarchy of any particular country. For example if the federal government suddenly disappeared the US could be called an anarchy as a whole even though each state would retain it's state government.
"So that we could begin adopting the policies of the third world dictatorships instead of the policies the developed this country?"
That's a ridiculous and paranoid caricature.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"That's a ridiculous and paranoid caricature."
You were thg one who wrote that the world needs [actually wrote 'we need'] a global governing body. As if the framework of the United States is inferior to what a global body could come up with given the composition of what the world's governments have to offer.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
UN sanctions forced the removal of apartheid in South Africa. UN relief agencies and peacekeepers can be seen working in almost all the world's trouble spots. Various UN programmes have brought succor and development to many developing nations. If something better is coming along I'm all for disbanding UN.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"UN sanctions forced the removal of apartheid in South Africa. UN relief agencies and peacekeepers can be seen working in almost all the world's trouble spots. Various UN programmes have brought succor and development to many developing nations."
Hmm, tell me, then, what your thoughts are on UN Security Council Resolution 1441?
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
Also countries today wield much more power than in the past. It's very easy for a country to make decisions that have consequences outside their borders. In such situation it's better to have a 3rd party settle the dispute than risk conflict and war.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"Also countries today wield much more power than in the past."
Countries or governments of those countries.
"It's very easy for a country to make decisions that have consequences outside their borders."
There's nothing new here. And also consider that it's very easy for a group of countries to strong arm a soveriegn country, creating consequences within a country's borders by an outside influence with no business messing with a sovereign people.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
"In such situation it's better to have a 3rd party settle the dispute than risk conflict and war."
This has merit as long as the membership in the governmental body is voluntary and can be rescinded. But let's just see how committed you are to the principle by answering the following question: how do you feel about the 3rd party disputes undertaken by the WTO? How do you view the WTO? Do you like the fact that the organization promotes trade, exchange, private property [aka capitalism]?
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
"As if the framework of the United States is inferior to what a global body could come up with given the composition of what the world's governments have to offer."
Are you saying the UN should be disbanded and the USA should carry out it's role?
"Hmm, tell me, then, what your thoughts are on UN Security Council Resolution 1441"
I don't know enough to have an informed opinion but it was NOT an endorsement of military action.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"it's very easy for a group of countries to strong arm a soveriegn country, creating consequences within a country's borders by an outside influence with no business messing with a sovereign people."
Right. Fortunately in the UN that sovereign country has it's say and can persuade others to it's side while in a scenario you're proposing everyone strong enough just takes what he wants by force.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"how do you feel about the 3rd party disputes undertaken by the WTO? How do you view the WTO? Do you like the fact that the organization promotes trade, exchange, private property [aka capitalism]?"
I don't know much about it but I can see where you're going with this. If you suspect that I have leftist leaning and therefore should feel threatened by WTO thereby exposing my hypocrisy, you're sorely mistaken. People are not that simple.
Jacnas 2 years ago
Why be coy, then? Would it hurt to honestly answer these questions?
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
I honestly don't feel threatened by WTO. I want the rich to pay much higher % income tax than the poor and from what little I know I don't see WTO as an impediment to achieving this goal. Now I know that americans go mental whenever they hear things like this (OMG SOCIALISM!!!) but relax I don't live in the US. I don't feel like explaining myself but contrary to what many think, merely taxing heavily the rich doesn't mean big government.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"I want the rich to pay much higher % income tax than the poor"
I guess it's becuase this provides the best way for the central planners to put incentives in place so that 'the rich' continue to create value and income-producing opportunities for the non-rich, right?
"...merely taxing heavily the rich doesn't mean big government. "
So true! If the tax rates are set higher than the optimal amount, the government will actually collect less revenue in which to grow itself with.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
You aren't telling me anything I didn't hear a hundred times over. I'm not here to explain myself, especially to someone who wouldn't listen. RELAX I'm not an american, your precious capitalism is safe from my evil dirty commie hands.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"I'm not here to explain myself, especially to someone who wouldn't listen."
Falese; I'd listen and even respond.
Now, as to why you're here: why are you here?To call me a terrorist? I 'listened' to that [actually, I read it] and even replied.
"You aren't telling me anything I didn't hear a hundred times over."
You heard it but were you listening? Or maybe you listened but didn't find it compeling.
"People are not that simple."
Exactly why individual liberty should be embraced.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
"You heard it but were you listening? Or maybe you listened but didn't find it compeling."
The latter. I used to be a libertarian (proportional tax, individual liberty). I'm still a libertarian but only when it comes to social issues (individual liberty). That's what I meant when I said you wouldn't listen.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"I used to be a libertarian (proportional tax, individual liberty). I'm still a libertarian but only when it comes to social issues (individual liberty)."
So, whereas you used to be completely for liberty and freedom, now you're just half authoritarian? I think I understand but I wouldn't want to make any assumptions, now, without you confirming this for me, first.
"That's what I meant when I said you wouldn't listen."
No, I'm still listening; it's just me who is not compelled this time
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
I mentioned I want high taxes for the rich and you immediately assumed a lot more about me. I know that americans have this reactionary knee jerk response to every sign of what they perceive as 'socialism' and I understand that. If I were brought up in a culture whose enemy for half a century was communism I would probably also think like that.
Jacnas 2 years ago
So, you're not very bright AND you project onto me the very attitudes that you harbor [knee-jerk reactionary]. Let's not forget how you opened dialogue with me here - if that wasn't knee-jerk [more jerk than knee, of course] I don't know what else is.
"I mentioned I want high taxes for the rich and you immediately assumed a lot more about me."
Specifically, what assumptions did I make and communicate through writing after you stated your positions on taxation? Again, reading comprehension.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
I called you a terrorist to provoke you. It wasn't knee jerk. But this conversation drifted away from the discussion about the UN and I'm not willing to go in this direction. Overall you made a lot more assumptions about me than I made about you. Now on top of being against personal liberty I'm big-government half-authoritarian(?). Progressive tax leading to big government is simply a non-sequitur. I don't want to explain myself here under 500 char limit.
Jacnas 2 years ago
"I called you a terrorist to provoke you."
To some degree, it worked. And you used this language simply because I suggested that other nations disbanding their governments and voluntarialy asking to be admitted under section 3 & 4 of Artcle IV of the Constitution, would more desireable? No assumptions there, huh?
"...I'm not willing to go in this direction."
Then don't! It's your life, I don't wish to manipulate it [even though the feeling MAY not be mutual...sorry; assumptions, ya know
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
"Overall you made a lot more assumptions about me than I made about you."
I really only made one: that you would be a hypocrit and disavow the WTO because of their stated goals while, at the same time, extolling the 'virtues' of the UN. Name the others I've made then examine your own assumptions about me and we'll see If you would want to correct yourself. Do you have integrity?
"...I'm big-government half-authoritarian(?)."
Is this the confirmation or are you denying it?
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
"Progressive tax leading to big government is simply a non-sequitur."
Really? Okay. But only because you don't want to go in that direction,right?
"I don't want to explain myself here under 500 char limit."
Well, I WOULD 'listen' if you did! Truth is though, I don't really want you to explain yourself here, either. You are, however, free to do what you like as long as the guy who operates this account doesn't mind it.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
I do apologize for all of these replies [damned 500 character limit, as you brought up]. But, since I'm provoked, and that was you intended goal ["I called you a terrorist to provoke you."], have you thought about changing your alias to something else very similar? Perhaps replacing the "n" for a "k" and adding an "s" to the end. Food for thought and just returning the provocation.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
Your other knee jerk implicit assumptions are the ones I listed (that I'm for big government, half-authoritarian and against liberty). I answered your question about WTO and then in a risky manner answered your following question (about being coy). That's when productive conversation ended in my view. By merely mentioning progressive taxation I opened an entire floodgate of memetic feedback which I fully expected if you read my previous comments.
Jacnas 2 years ago
I'll forget the comment regarding taxation. I'll forget that the WTO seems to be fine with you as long as you do not feel threatened by it. I'll forget that you used to be for complete liberty but now are just for the social liberties. I'll even foget that you've accused me of writing my assumptions I have of you even though I have not written of them.
At this point, I am willing to let you shape the discussion and presumably write about the UN. How does this grab you? I'm listening!
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
High taxes is crap. It is used as a way to wage classist war fare and divide us. What government should do is tighten it's belt and quit being frivolous with our dollars. Tax burdens should be lowered during this economic down turn not increased. Further Protectionism should be encouraged. considering that for the past 20 years more jobs have wen overseas than came in. Unless you prefer making minimum wage at mcdonalds.
vindicato15 2 years ago
Actually the WTO has no track record of ever protecting individual property rights. Needless to say they will protect corporate property rights but the rights of the individual mean very little to them. You should read more on the WTO. They have done more to disenfranchise small business than any other group.
vindicato15 2 years ago
The WTO simply tries to liberalize trade between nations and adopts mechanisms -- that member nations agree to -- that make it unwise to practice protectionism: as if protectionism were not unwise enough. The only reason why protectionism is attractive is because far too many people prefer job security while being xenophobic...politicians just cater to the populism even though most know its damaging effects in the longer run. The WTO DOES NOT concern itself with commerce at the micro level.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
great video
lmagolda6001 2 years ago
Pft, if the UN can't enforce regulation against REAL crimes, I doubt they will be able to enforce regulation against non-crimes.
Europe DOES have a leading role in the world. Just because it has problems doesn't make it untrue.
The US has even more issues than Europe, but it's THE global leader of the world (although this is likely to change in the next few decades).
SaimDI 2 years ago
People who want to silence those who don't agree with their point of view - deserve no freedom to their views either.
Great video!
NoBSTV 2 years ago
I once asked a Protest Minister, a Catholic Priest and a Jewish Rabbi, "Do you think God forgave King David? They all replied yes, but the Rabbi went even further. "He admitted he was wrong and he was genuinely sorry. We could use someone like King David today instead of the polititions we have". That Rabbi was right! King David had fortitude! A leader with fortitude would send the U.N. packing.
lancechamplain 2 years ago
fucking ridiculous! we need politicians with balls, politicians who realize that you can't please everyone, smarter politicians
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
I blame the UN and the UK and the US, anything with a U in it really. LOL
5 stars.
ArchhereticK 2 years ago
This can be twisted in so many ways. If I say poo is islam and then I say I don't like the smell of poo am I critisizing Islam?
Who are the goverment to say which words mean what in made up languages. If that law covers all languages make up your own to start critisizing them. See how funny the head lines will be when you get arrested for saying you don't like the smell of poo. When poo means Islam.
gaia942 2 years ago
Okay, now we are against freedom because we don't let fascists in our universities? come on.
heavyaxe2 2 years ago
I still view the UK (and several European countries) as one of the world's leaders of Freedom. This is why I made this video--because the movement to stifle free speech in Europe is concerning precisely because they are free countries.
I didn't talk about Iran and their myriad of human rights violations because I don't view Iran as a "leader of freedom" in the slightest.
We ought to be vigilant that the true leaders of freedom remain free.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
I didn't mean Iran either.
I was talking about the NPD in Germany for example, who is allowed to exist but not given much stage. And whenever somebody of them acts fascist, they are arrested, like their latest leader a few weeks ago.
I think this is a good 'stifle' of free speech, seriously. when it comes to Islam criticism the actors quasi forbid themselves because they allways cooperate with nazis, because they have the same aim.
heavyaxe2 2 years ago
and we only ban them, if they do indeed.
heavyaxe2 2 years ago
We seem to have a difference in our fundamental ideals.
I think if someone wants to be an advocate for fascism (singe-party state, corporatist economy, etc) than they should be allowed to do so. However, very large parts of fascism directly relate to social/racial purity & violence as mainstream--of course, advocating direct violence is equal to violent acts themselves, and therefore out-of-line.
However, it is paramount not to confuse "community tension" with "incitement to violence".
MisterBusta 2 years ago
That is indeed true.
I now understand the real issue: Fascist powers should be fought against but we actually have to be carefull who says who is fascist and who's not. In our enthusiasm we could easily be conviced to fight against 'the good guys'.
I'll keep that in mind, thank you very much!
But I from Germany can say...we can't allow any fascism whatsoever for everyone knows what reason...It's of course different in other countries.
heavyaxe2 2 years ago
I fully understand Germany's reluctance for any tolerance of those types of views. Neo-nazis here in America are allowed to peacefully assemble and preach their ideals all day long. In Germany, I fully understand the reluctance of allowing that... but Germany is no longer fascist--they are a free country, and should act as such.
I recognize the difference between nations, and not everything is the same. But I guess I'm saying fundamental rights, such a free speech, should not be violated.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
Most definitely agree with you --
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Such was Voltaire's amazingly advanced and far-seeing political philosophy and it's sad to see Europe backpaddling for whatever the reason.... :(
earthypig 2 years ago
wtf! i have no idea why there's a huge gap in my previous comment! i guess u can take it as a "dramatic pause" courtesy of Youtube glitch =P
earthypig 2 years ago
Great vid!!
Europe=Eurabia in 2075 A.D.
DesertLaser 2 years ago
Eurabia? What a poor comment.
Just as poor as suggesting that at least gives Europe about 66 years, whereas you might well be speaking Spanish already in lets say 2050.
Efteling4Ever 2 years ago
You might be right about Mexicans but europe does not have 66 years. 20-25 is probably max and the riots and militias and amputations and stonings will start well before that.
FrankinHolland 2 years ago
Yeah, but no Latino-American will cut anyone's head off for yelling "Libertad!" in the street.
BigDaddyBongos 2 years ago
what movie was that at the end?
ClingingMars 2 years ago
"Good Night and Good Luck", a great movie about the McCarthy era.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
sweet, thanks
ClingingMars 2 years ago
can't take Michael Savage? ahaha
ClingingMars 2 years ago
Europe is becoming fascist. They would even have us become fascist. As George Carlan once stated, "Fascism will not come with a swastika next time around it will be a smiley face" Nuff said Nanny states are pathetic.
vindicato15 2 years ago
dude
i dunno what your point is but USA is much more facsist than eurpe right now
USA is the fourth reich
hollandbovenaan 2 years ago
That's the problem with British common law. The judicial system practically makes the law on a case to case basis. It all becomes dependent on the opinion of the judge.
diaverde09 2 years ago
A very good video. I think you raise a very important issue. Europe's selectivity in recognizing free speech is reprehensible. However, I will say that many of America's unilateral (and often idiotic) policies have disgraced us in front of the international community.
I think both the US and Europe are guilty of embracing short-sighted solutions to complex problems. I totally agree with you about not adapting Europe's policy on censorship.
MarshalNey13 2 years ago
Indeed. I view much of Europe (such as the UK) as leaders of freedom in the world. This is why I think it's a big problem when they stifle free speech. This movement is highly concerning.
When Islamic countries stifle free speech, it's not nearly as "concerning", since I don't view those countries as role-models for freedom. (the people of such countries deserve freedom, I'm just saying that it doesn't act as a role model for the world to follow).
MisterBusta 2 years ago
islam is a lie dont belive what that book says.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
Another great vid MB. Thanks.
JHancock1776 2 years ago
obama is a europhile?
0bodobod0 2 years ago
Could be but his choice of word "Appreciates"... It does not always mean Agrees or likes, it may mean aware. It is ambiguous that way. Most people think appreciate means like... I appreciate you... Could be a compliment or a just acknowledgement (masquerading as a compliment, which I think this is).
On the other hand: New World Order And Obama is not the guy to stop it but the guy to bring it to it's final phase LOL..
iamufreak 2 years ago
5star video...
The US needs to remain Sovereign from the mindset of Europe. Britain is a breath away of burning books, regulating free speech on the internet, and imprisoning dissenting voices.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
The mindset of europe. No shit. Are you an expert on our mindset then? What might that be then?
Burning books? Get a grip on reality. Bet the EU have more independent free media than the US.
Imprisoning dissenting voices? Mate, it's not the EU that came up with a Guantanamo. "Guilty until proven innocent" is not an EU thing.
Efteling4Ever 2 years ago
Where's the part of the UK constitution that guarantees freedom of speech?
Oh, wait, the UK doesn't even have a constitution now does it?
BigDaddyBongos 2 years ago
Excellent video. More people should be pointing things like this out.
InvertedKira 2 years ago
A really good vid analyzing a very BIG problem. thanks MB
halomandrummer 2 years ago