What's wrong with liberals? part 1 of 5

[SKat036]

TO: ALL titles and what theyre are defined as dont mean shit, it whats been done that needs judgement....

[GeorgeBonez]

Look dude you are a smart guy but your young and thats why you struggle with defining liberals. Liberalism is really a conglomeration of a bunch of one issue voters or people that come together with other one issue folks to form a formidable power. Most of them don't know or care about the nation as a whole. They just want their one thing accepted at any cost even if it means siding with someone that doesn't give two shits about their cause. This one is for free. Im Charging you next time.

[sonicsuns]

@GeorgeBonez To some degree, yes, liberalism is a variety of positions that don't necessarily hold strong relationships which each other. But conservatism works in the same way. For instance, there's no particular reason why Christian piousness should be linked with anti-tax feeling (considering Matthew 22:15-22) or pro-military feeling (considering Matthew 5:38-42), And yet all of these fall under "conservatism" moreso than "liberalism".

[LycoValleyRRFan]

You speak good. I use to be lib/Dem. But got a lot of Libs/Dems idiots smart asses. They keep saying shit so I got piss off but I found Conservative/Republican and I like it because it make more common sense. Now libs/Dems keep saying shit all the time I speak a little so they yeah at me for speaking just a little. Why I every was Libs/Dem I don't know.

[CodisOmodis]

What is your stance on the legalization of pot?

[sonicsuns]

@CodisOmodis I think it should be legal but regulated. So you can't drive while high, and you can't smoke in public (because then other people have to breathe the smoke even if they don't want to), etc., but otherwise it should be ok. This especially applies to the case of (legitimate) medical marijuana.

[CodisOmodis]

@sonicsuns

Good to know. I agree with everything you said. They should impose the same basic laws on Marijuana as they do Alcohol.

[GeorgeBonez]

@CodisOmodis Why?? So that you can get high without the fear of going to jail? Yep. You dont care about the big picture. You just want to smoke it up. Fucking selfish ass. Well you pot heads can make it legal all you want but when you get fucked up and kill someone in my family in a car wreck just like the drunks dont worry about the courts. YOU WILL NEVER LIVE TO SEE ONE.

[sonicsuns]

@GeorgeBonez GeogeBonez, what if someone gets high on marijuana, but they're responsible enough to avoid driving while high, so that way they *don't* kill anyone in your family? How would you feel about that?

[Jimjonist]

Look, I don't hate liberals, I hate the ideas in their heads. I respect they're person, but not their thoughts.. You know?

[sonicsuns]

@Jimjonist I'm glad you respect liberals as persons. What do you find so hateful about their ideas?

[Jimjonist]

@sonicsuns Perhaps, hate is not the right word lets say strongly against. I am strongly against gun control (check out theARMORYchannels video on gun control spoke my mind.)

[sonicsuns]

@Jimjonist Well even theARMORYchannels favors some form of gun control, he said so at 2:30 to 2:45 in his video: "They should put you through some stuff to get a legal gun.". Also, he seems to think that gun laws cannot possibly be enforced. Yet we've managed to control rocket launchers and grenades pretty well. Perhaps the same can be achieved with regards to guns?

What else do you dislike about liberal ideas?

[LycoValleyRRFan]

@sonicsuns Yeah you need to have a something how liberals take everything out of text. I commented on a video. They toke it way out of text and they will not shut up and read the comment closely. Called me a idiot like we invade Iraq because of 911 ha read your history we invade Iraq in 03-04. 911 was 01. I have a teacher that says inflation is good wtf. It makes our money value go down. Sure make it cheaper for all but we can't buy their stuff because our money has no value. Ask China.You Know?

[047022221]

liberals are capitalist? sure, like how russia is supposedly capitalism to

[BeardedBill86]

I have to say, your positions don't see very well thought out to have such a strong stance on them.

[sonicsuns]

@BeardedBill86 Do you have any specific criticisms?

[BeardedBill86]

@sonicsuns Well for example, you off-handedly say you're pro-life yet give no reasons as to why you are.

Have you given any consideration at all to the women whose lives you would see ruined with pro-life legislation? Or do those women not factor into the equation?

[sonicsuns]

@BeardedBill86 Well I thought the video was long enough already (5 parts) without explaining my views on abortion. But I did a separate video on abortion, at youtube(dot)com(slash)watch?v=­xPwpxcUj5qM

Of course I have given consideration to the women who desire/need abortions. I have great sympathy for them, and I think society should do a better job of helping them. It's just that, as far as I can tell, a fetus is a human. So I don't think we should be killing innocent fetuses.

[BeardedBill86]

@sonicsuns You're aware of the science regarding how aware fetuses are at different stages I'm sure?

So where do you draw the line between a human being and a sperm/egg? 1 day? 1 week?

Also, what if the fetus shows obvious sign's that it's going to have a permanent disability after birth, or something else that will ruin its life, or even that it will die not long after being born?

[sonicsuns]

@BeardedBill86 Of course, it's a very difficult issue.

As for drawing the line, I'll take the formation of the zygote, when the 46 essential chromosomes are joined. It seems a better line than birth, anyway. The baby 2 minutes after birth is very similar to the one from 4 minutes ago; why should we treat it like such a big change?

As for disabilities, would you use those arguments on living children? If a one-minute-old infant was clearly disabled, would you kill it?

Again, it's a tough issue

[BeardedBill86]

@sonicsuns Well, I'm for assisted suicide aswell so that probably gives you your answer.. I don't feel any sentient being should be forced to suffer, in the case of fetuses they are unable to say whether they want to or not, in that instance.. you have a tough choice to make, but sometimes I would make the decision to prevent indefinate suffering.

[sonicsuns]

@BeardedBill86 Indeed, that is a tough choice. Many people have led successful lives despite disabilities. I can well imagine that someone would have aborted Helen Keller had they known she would be blind and deaf.

As you say, assisted suicide is different, because the person who is dying gets to make the choice for themselves.

[TaqiyyaExposer]

You're a moron.

[xBLOODBAFx]

ive noticed the green party, they seem moral... but why aern't people noticing them for their good deeds? i donno... i hate politics , but i realize this country is in bad shape and needs something like more voters... ive been considering independent myself though...

[047022221]

@xBLOODBAFx those buggarts wanting to kill business to save penguins? they should go die good economy=good scientist=good research= a solution

[xBLOODBAFx]

@047022221

what buggarts are you talking about? o_0 but i've heard that ppl from the green party are criticizers of big corporations that basically rule most of america... the reds and the blues lol they think that money is more powerful than any god a conservative would believe in haha and it shows in thier actions in goverment and we all know how good that works *rolls eyes*

well , i believe that Science= dependable innovation=good economy= good reasurch= enhanced civilization.

[xBLOODBAFx]

@047022221

hmmm, and you mean by "buggarts" being the big oil business devils like the rockerfellers and the rothchilds who have more money than the UN combined and could , if they chose to, feed and clothe every motherfucker on this plannet.... but instead want to kill PEOPLE for moar oil in pointless wars... they are the malignant tumor on the human species. they and their lemmings deserve to die. :) save teh penguins? not just penguins... the human fucking race.

[xBLOODBAFx]

mmmm, i didn't vote becouse i dont trust the government.... but then again, i dont trust big corporate dickheads either....at least government is SUPPOSED to represent the people....-_- youtube... i worry bout u .... stop sucking corporate dick lol i cant even thumb up and star anymore lol.

but anyways.... i know close to nothing when it comes to politics lol besides turning on the news -__-... i think we all know how that goes... but ive been thinking about wanting to make a differece..

[IndependentBias]

Why are you saying that the freemarket is the same as enviornmental restrctions and child labor. In a conservative society, the government can still stop a rediculous law like child labor. Are you fucking serious, trying to hint that a free market = child labor. Then wtf is up with th, "the market is slit throat..." guess what? The government is even more backstabbing, lying asswholes.

BTW, the market crashed because people were buying things off of credit. Not because of a fee market.

[sonicsuns]

@IndependentBias The free market is not the same as child labor. The free market CAN produce child labor if it goes unchecked. Similarly, government CAN produce tyranny if it goes unchecked. Both the free market and the government can do good or bad things, depending on the circumstance. And yes, I acknowledge that conservative societies can outlaw child labor. I merely brought that up as a counterpoint to the idea of a perfect free market.

[sonicsuns]

@IndependentBias "BTW, the market crashed because people were buying things off of credit. Not because of a fee market. "

People bought things off of credit by their own free will; they weren't forced to do so by the government. Thus, by definition, the act of buying too much stuff on credit was an action of the free market.

Free markets are made of people. They are perfectly capable of acting stupid sometimes.

[IndependentBias]

@sonicsuns

And the government isn't? (Vietnam, oilspill... etc) The government could have stepped in and said, "Hey, stupid ass banks... no more letting people buy off of credit." But no. Restrictions on the market are more for the stock market really. How much you can buy and sell. Not laws preventing it from destroying itself. That was the faliure of the federal government, and the people. Something that the liberal world depends too much on is our government doing what's best for everyone.

[sonicsuns]

@IndependentBias "And the government isn't [capable of acting stupid]?" Of course the government is capable of acting stupid. I never said otherwise.

"The government could have stepped in and said, 'Hey, stupid ass banks... no more letting people buy off of credit.; But no. "

Are you arguing for more government regulation? I though you were more of a free-market person.

"That was the faliure of the federal government, and the people."

Yes, everyone screwed up.

[IndependentBias]

@sonicsuns

Part 1:

Yes, the first part was my reponse to the "capable of acting stupid" part. Sorry for not clarifying that.

What I am saying though, is the government can regulate what certain busnisses do. Like banks allowing people to buy stuff off of credit. And still have a free market. This opinion is somewhere in the middle, but does lean a little right. We would allow the big businesses to buy out little businesses however they want, this is a free market.

[IndependentBias]

@sonicsuns

Part 2:

You were putting enviornmental regulations, and federal law (child labor) in the same category as free market. The weird thing about the liberal economics, is that the government say they like the little business. When indeed, the freemarket likes the little business. The free market makes it cheaper, and easier to start a business. Sure, the big companys may buy it out in like 5 years, but that is because the little business couldn't survive on commercal basis.

[ssjL3g3nd]

@sonicsuns That's equivalent to saying, the KKK burned crosses to be racist and incite cleansing of a race; therefore all white people are the reason for Nazism...You cannot generalize an entire people or economic policies due to a few people, or consumer making an idiotic mistake.

[sonicsuns]

@ssjL3g3nd Which of my comments are you referring to? (Sorry, this new reply system confuses me)

[ssjL3g3nd]

@sonicsuns "People bought things off of credit by their own free will; they weren't forced to do so by the government. Thus, by definition, the act of buying too much stuff on credit was an action of the free market." That is the myopic insight I am referring to.

[sonicsuns]

@ssjL3g3nd I see. Well, the act of buying too much stuff on credit *was* an action of the free market, so I stand by that remark. But via your KKK analogy, you seem to believe that I take this particular excess of the free market to be a reason to condemn the free market generally. That's not true; I know that the free market has a good side. (The free market gave us youtube, for instance.) I simply believe that certain excesses ought to be regulated.

[ssjL3g3nd]

@sonicsuns I suppose that the free market can have a bad side in the same way that free speech can produce pro-nazi marches and such. I see what you are concluding...I guess it has some basis.

[meloveanna]

Just found this video, seeing the cross above your bed means you lose all credibility. I can't listen to anything a mindless Christian has to say, when clearly they can't think for themselves. I have a strong distaste for liberals, but it pales in comparison to how i feel about religious people.

[sonicsuns]

@meloveanna "mindless Christian"? Certainly there are mindless Christians in the world, but what about mindful Christians? Is it so hard to imagine that some Christians - even a minority - might be intelligent?

And by the way, though I was Christian when I made this video, I converted to Humanism (which is a form of atheism) earlier this year. And I still agree with what I said in the video.

[meloveanna]

@sonicsuns No rational, mindful person can accept anything on faith. Sure there are probably many Christians that can score high on an IQ test, but without intellect, intelligence means nothing.

[sonicsuns]

@meloveanna I agree that it is not rational or mindful to accept something on faith, but you're still making assumptions.

Take this statement: "No genius would waste his money by gambling". But what if, say, someone was a genius at physics, and yet he was also a habitual gambler? Can't he be smart in one area and dumb in another?

Similarly, just because a person is irrational on the subject of God does not necessarily mean that they are irrational with all other subjects.

[ExistentialistRobb]

Quote of the day: "The free market gave us child labor, you know."

I really respect your ideas and I agree with most of what you say, thank you for such an entertaining and enlightening video. I share you opinions.

[sonicsuns]

@ExistentialistRobb thanks for watching!

[padywac1970]

now here is a person in which i can identify. And i consider my self a conservitive independent

[denniscastro42]

i hope that means you're a libertarian...and not a statist

[sonicsuns]

@padywac1970 thank you!

[denniscastro42]

regulations on business kill small business- and big businesses love them. they automatically legitimize big businesses. big busines also has far greater legal and physical capability to deal with federal codes. take the ADA (am. w disabilities act) a huge company has no problem putting on ramps, hiring disabled, etc.however, a small enterprise has to spend far more, %age-wise, in order to comply.

[Blowb666]

The child labour problems hasn't been solved. The trans national companies have just moved their sweat shops to developing countries.

[sonicsuns]

Yes, it's true. Child labor has not yet been abolished. But at least we're trying.

[Blowb666]

I don't believe we are. I'm sure plenty of corporations, company executives and governments would be happy to leave things as they are. In the same way that governments do not want to step in on situations in Zimbabwe and other countries.

[sonicsuns]

Well, yes. I'll admit that plenty of corporations willingly use child labor and they'd like to keep it that way. What I meant was that child labor has been banned in America, which means something, even though Zimbabwe still has child labor which corporations exploit.

[narwhalfreedomforce]

you make a good point about the regulations. even though they are able to get out of hand. but i just want to ask why you are pro gun control?

[sonicsuns]

I am pro gun control (generally) because I believe that we've got to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them. With regulation, we can stop criminals and psychotics from owning guns. I don't necessarily believe in gun prohibition. I would say that, to own a gun, a person must be a law-abiding adult of sound mind and body, they must register the gun, get a permit, and offer proof that they have been certified in the safe use of guns.

[sonicsuns]

Also, if the person's gun is ever used improperly (i.e. by an unlicensed person, or for a criminal purpose, or used in an unsafe way) the owner must face some sort of penalty, because apparently he didn't keep track of his gun.

For more on the subject, see my video "Some thoughts on Gun Control"

[narwhalfreedomforce]

so you are basically happy with the gun laws we have now. or would you want to impose new laws.

[denniscastro42]

by the way, im glad to hear that you are anti-baby killing.

[Blowb666]

lol oh no! i am a baby killer! lol

[denniscastro42]

haha...i guess you are...

[denniscastro42]

o come on. the more i watch of this video, the dumber it gets. if a co. uses child labor, consumers will not buy from it! the problem will self correct w/out govt. i have no problem w/ anti child labor laws- dont assume that conservatives + libertarians like me oppose them. one problem w govt regulation is that one regulation will usually lead to another to correct the problem the 1st one made. more regulation= more business costs= higher consumer prices, which hurt everyone

[sonicsuns]

you said: "one regulation will usually lead to another to correct the problem the 1st one made"

I respond: Do you have examples of this? Government regulates the speed limit, and vehicle safety standards, and it checks our medicines and foods to make sure they aren't contaminated. These regulations are pretty good; what exactly is the downside?

[denniscastro42]

i agree, these are. Consider many tariffs (like sugar): the govt basically raises prices by taxing foreign businesses. we PAY the govt to make higher prices for us. also, after these e coli scares and recalled drugs, how are those regulations working out?

[sonicsuns]

You said: "after these e coli scares and recalled drugs, how are those regulations working out?"

I respond: But that just means that we should have *more* regulation, not less. And even though regulation didn't act as quickly as it should have acted in the situations you mentioned, at least some action was taken. If it weren't for regulation, it would take even longer to discover the e coli etc. Think of all the people who didn't get sick (because the government discovered the problem).

[denniscastro42]

listen-i do want my food inspected, but there is already enough govt. you highlighted the problem unwittingly. you wrote "...we should have more regulation, not less..." that quote exemplifies why i often have a problem with regulations. all i was saying was that govt. is not nearly as efficient as you make it out to be. you need to get rid of the illusion that govt. can do anything flawlessly.

[sonicsuns]

You said: "[Child Labor] will self correct w/out govt"

I respond: By why wait for whenever that self-correction will occur? Why not just step in with government? Before FDR signed child labor legislation, there was alot of child labor in America, and people were still (guiltily) buying the products even though they knew where they came from. Sometimes government is faster than the free market.

[denniscastro42]

did you not read my whole comment?i agree with you in this case.the fact is, problems that can be solved w/out govt reasonably should be.

[sonicsuns]

I *did* read your whole comment, and I am glad that you're not against child labor laws. But you implied that the laws are unnecessary, and I was arguing that, even if they aren't strictly necessary, they're better than government apathy.

[denniscastro42]

in this case, yes. however, think of precedents. one of the problems i have with these bailouts is that one leads to another (give a kid a cookie...) first it was the banks, then cars, and now newspapers and porn. the govt is not a free, unlimited ATM.

[denniscastro42]

liberals certainly advocate negative policies. soft liberals like you believe they are being noble and good, but do not really think. no liberal understands economics.for example, welfare saps initiative and ingenuity. these people have no reason to work-welfare runs their lives. also, to have more welfare means higher taxes for everyone. with more taxes= less money= less buying power= less demand= businesses failing= job cuts and fewer taxpayers and consumers. its an ugly, self-feeding cycle

[sonicsuns]

You said: "no liberal understands economics.for example"

I respond: Really? No liberal, not ever? That's a pretty broad statement.

[denniscastro42]

dont be so technical. i watch c-span-all of the panel economists are conservatives. liberal economists testifying before a DEMOCRATIC panel are rare.

[sonicsuns]

You said: "welfare saps initiative and ingenuity."

I respond: Sure, if it's done poorly, and boatloads of cash are handed to lazy people. But what about someone who's legitimately down on his luck (i.e. contracted some terrible disease and spent all his money to cure it, and now he's homeless and poor)? Is it so wrong to help that guy out a bit? Can't we give him food and shelter for some reasonable amount of time until he gets back on his feet?

[sonicsuns]

In that sort of scenario, welfare actually *encourages* initiative and ingenuity; you can't show initiative when you're dead, so welfare keeps you alive. I admit that the system doesn't always work (i.e. money given to the wrong people), but the basic idea is sound.

[sonicsuns]

You said: "these people have no reason to work"

I respond: Sure they do: to get something better than mere subsistence! If welfare put people up at the Ritz, with all the luxuries they could ever want, then I would understand your argument. But welfare (should) provide just enough to keep you alive and relatively healthy; if you want anything else, you'll have to work for it. And people always want more than basic subsistence.

[sonicsuns]

You said: "more taxes= less money= less buying power= less demand= businesses failing"

I respond: Sure, if you tax too much. But conservatives seem to think that more taxes is *always* a bad thing, no matter what the situation may be or what the taxes are being spent on. Taxes have a purpose, you know: they pay for government services.

[sonicsuns]

For instance, government took our tax dollars and used them to build the interstate highway system, which made transportation much easier and overall *encouraged* the progress of the economy. Similarly, social programs such as welfare can (potentially) get people on their feet again, allowing them to join the workforce. (As opposed to becoming criminals of desperation etc.)

[denniscastro42]

you werent around during the 1990s welfare debate.liberals-most of them, not a few, predicted corpses everywhere, thousands more homeless and waves of poverty. Guess what? it didnt happen.

[denniscastro42]

they are not always a bad thing, but usually. are you really naive enough to think that the govt that bankrupted social security and has a $1 TRILLION DOLLAR debt should be trusted? please. here are just a few things our congress has done with OUR money:

$1 million 4 sewer repairs in Casper, Wyo.

$1.5 million for Dayton, OH "Reduce Prostitution-Off of the streets Program"

$6 million for beach decoration in Ventura, CA

im sure the list goes on-i only heard these briefly on the news

[denniscastro42]

if you received money every day, why would you work? If people get no money to survive, then they will HAVE TO FIND A JOB TO LIVE, which they will. welfare is addictive.

[DavidWillB]

You ask "if you received money every day, why would you work?"

Why do people do charity work as unpaid volunteers?

For pride in a job well done and for the effect we have. Monetary compensation is not the only reason to work.

Even if there were no reasons other than money to work, you get more by working than you do when you don't work.

[denniscastro42]

yes, volunteer wok is crucial. but, come on. are you seriously going to go file papers, stock shelves, flip burgers, or be bossed around for nothing? in volunteer work, you do direct good, dont have a *boss*, and it isnt very boring. joe shmoe isnt going to go out there and file financial inventory statements for pride or charity.

[DavidWillB]

My first volunteer job was stocking shelves at a library.

When you volunteer, people in charge are generally very polite- being bossed around isn't much of a problem.

I admit I wouldn't flip burgers as a volunteer, but I wouldn't do that as a paid job either- I don't handle meat.

I'm starting a nonprofit group where volunteers like me will be making wind turbines from alternators, batteries, and whatever good but cheap lumber we can find.

From the responses, I think you underestimate people.

[denniscastro42]

oh, come on. dont underestimate the ability of people to survive. if you had the choice of starving or actually getting a job, what would you do? duh.

[denniscastro42]

ok- i somewhat agree here, but these cases are not frequent. These people have relatives to help out. many of you liberals seem to fantasize about these people as single, gay, mexican cripples with no relatives. Now, this is a problem, but the solution is charities. (remember bill gates' wonderful contribution) i dont think you people understand that if you tax people less, then they will have more money to spend on the economy+ charities.

[denniscastro42]

you are a retard, modelanarchist. you are so lucky to be living in a country that does not kill you for saying what you said

[ModelAnarchist]

What is wrong with hating America?

[bestsnowboarderuknow]

this guy is a joke, i love watching stupid people who think they are intelligent. San Francisco is ground zero for these guys.

[TreyM375]

Vote for Change 2012! Four years is enough!

[retrop2]

I don't know why you would advocate Liberalism. You really are not what the modern liberal represents. Except for gun control, which is HIGHLY unconstitutional, past registering your weapons that is. I'm not a smoker but, ... seriously? You breath everyone's toxic exhaust daily. Even most conservatist promote government involvement in most issues. It is it's duty to "promote a general welfare," amongst the public. But most modern liberals insist on going past the threshold of morality.

[sonicsuns]

I disagree with you about gun control. I seem to remember that the Constitution establishes the right to keep and bear arms only for a "well-regulated militia". It says nothing at all about private ownership.

As for smoking, air toxicity comes from a variety of sources. Smoking is one, and I advocate limits on smoking. Cars etc. are another source; that's why I also support legislation to promote cleaner cars etc. to help clear the air.

[sonicsuns]

And how exactly do "most modern liberals" go "past the threshold of morality", anyway? I mean, sure, some people go too far, but what negative policies are advocated by "most" modern liberals?

[belvdr31cb]

I think being a "liberal" means to have common sense, support the separation of the state and church, If is attacked sexually let the women choose to abort...i will tell u the rest but i have to get back to work.

[dandaman2206]

I have thoughts of both. I consider myself more Conservative. Not the normal one though. Both Parties have VERY unconstitutional ideas. Liberal(gun control 2nd admendmant) and conservatives(Patriots act 4th and 6th).

I think our goverment should have a 3rd party called the Constitutional Conservatives. We should have the Constitution as our law not a guideline. NOTHING CAN OVERIDE IT!

[nero8289]

You should read ayn rand.and Her philosophy of objectvisim.

[dandaman2206]

I actually just took a test and came out just barely liberal. I still consider more of my ideas conservative though. I'll check it out.

[l0gically]

Interesting thing about the so-called free-market crash...in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act (establishing the Federal Reserve) was passed to prevent this very thing. It didn't. The Federal Reserve is an artifact of liberal thinking that has done nothing but establish a very small group of 'elites' that quite literally syphon money from the system while providing pretty much nothing in return.

[retrop2]

Thank god for you and your comment. Lets start the revolution! We need to educate people. The Federal Reserve literally has a monopoly on government borrowing and our income tax dollars are being deposited in the accounts of disgustingly rich and evil men.

[l0gically]

The toxic waste example was a good one. Another one where the market needs help is with various means that have been set up to protect *against* competition- patents and copyrights. I agree with them in principle, but the manner in which they are being used today isn't quite what was envisioned at their inception.