so wait, the entire fund (in the big circle) is slightly larger than three of the small circles around the corporate lobbyist version of that chart (when factored individually, not all together, like in the big circle), so that would mean that... ARITHMETIC IS A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY! No wonder he doesn't cite sources, they use the evil marxist trick of MATH! ... wait, if addition is a lie, then the actual view count of this video is more like 100 hits or so!
And your point would be... ? That there is much more money in liberal/humanist political views than conservative/corporatist political views....? Sorry, I have to disagree.
@pignanelli The fact that you consider Liberals to be humanists and Conservatives to be corporatists would suggest that you lack the political education to disagree with what he's said.
@pignanelli Yeah, it does. I suppose if your definition of "education" is "mindless, irrational indoctrination by radical, pseudo-intellectual college professors", you're highly educated.
@enjolrassnape I agree that the Founders were only human, but you have your facts wrong. The 3/5ths (not 3/8ths) clause referred to slaves, not particular ethnicities. Southern slave owners wanted slaves to have a full vote, so they could control their slaves' votes and thus the government, and so ensure slavery would continue. The 3/5ths compromise weighed the hatred most of the Founders felt toward slavery with the need to have support from the southern states.
I tried googling the "non-profit" you interviewed with and came up with nothing. Is this what you were talking about? calperks(dot)com/index.html. Can you please post more sources and truly inform the American public? Hmm, maybe I should start my own show where I act like jock and pull things out of my ass, yet make it sound convincing enough or complicated enough to fool the gullible American public. Now I see what George Carlin was talking about: ?v=ILwOQV32rHg
@guikubivan So yes, shes believe the comedian George Carlin, who never studied anything about political-science or economics instead of the guy who caught the liberal organizartion redhanded in their propaganda machine.
@GermanConquistador08 Dude, Steven Crowder's background is in comedy and like Carlin didn't study shit. The only difference is that Carlin wasn't a political puppet and told it like it was. Read Crowder's biography yourself: imdb(.)com/name/nm0189589/bio
@guikubivan I read the biography you posted, which was laced with attacks on his character, so instead I looked at both the wikipedia article on him, and the statements on his personal website. Carlin did NOT tell it like it is. He used as much hyperbole in his political and social rants as much as any other comedian did/does. Also think about thisL If you're a conservative comedian, you're a puppet, but if you're a liberal comedian no matter HOW inaccurate you are, you're a genius. Nice.
ok, so there all scumbags. Does that mean I stop caring about the environment or accept that it's alright that people get filthy rich when the rich promotes waste pollution selfishness and causes the suffering of so many because of them and their actions?
Ahhh, nope
It's clear that Mr. Muscles has never gotten the short end of the stick
@swecMortifer666 No, the job he applied for was a canvassing/organizer job, which is not the same at all as just a grassroots volunteer. The point of the job he applied for is to mobilize communities toward a common cause. The people he mobilizes are all unpaid volunteers, just like people that are going to these Tea Party rallies. The difference is CalPIRG isn't going to pay these people to go to rallies, whereas Americans for Prosperity and Faces of Coal pay for their travel, lodge and food
Nancy Pelosi scares the fuck out of me. And I'm a liberal/democratic socialist. Don't know what the hell she is. Maybe Rasputin's clone. Or the Wicked Witch of the West.'
"And I need to go wash off the filthy hippy." Fucking funny.
@XxTurtleManxX I'd say Rasputin's forgotten daughter. She's still alive since she wasn't shot, stabbed, drowned, or beaten. The Russians foolishly spared her dark soul.
Nancy Pelosi scares the fuck out of me. And I'm a liberal/democratic socialist. Don't know what the hell she is. Maybe Rasputin's clone. Or the Wicked Witch of the West.
Soooooo........you are against integrated schools. Nice to know. Also what happened to the whole 'we're a republic not a democracy' conservative talking point? Doesn't work for you here dose it?
I can't help but notice, Steven, that when the Leftists post comments, they almost always bring up a subject that has nothing to do with your video. They don't counter anything that you've said in the video. It's more like, "Yeah, well, what about when the Republicans ... (insert irrelevant nonsense here)?" Or my favorite: calling Republicans "fascists." Please, go do some reading and come back when you actually know the definition of the word "fascist."
Obviously both sides buy their candidates into office. The difference is, the Right serves the corporations, the Left serves the people (usually, sometimes they fuck us over too)
i love this guy because he teaches us that democrats are corrupt and that no single republican politician ever is. Nor are republican politicians and pastors who SCREAM out against homosexuality ever really in closet homosexuals who happen to be Extreme hypocrites.
Hey Steven tell these Liberals how their president just signed a republican bill to allow for offshore drilling Even after this Entire mess with British Petroleum to fuck up our entire eco system.
or how he expanded on the patriot act bush created.
you know the same Bush who ordered the national guard and the military to TAKE Peoples guns away.
Republican's pushed through highly controversial tax cuts in 2003 using reconciliation. Vote was 50-50 with Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. 400 top economists (including many noble peace price laureates) wrote President Bush saying that these tax cuts would hurt the average American and increase inequality.
@Ladiestreat Yes because as we've seen very recently it takes SO much to earn a Noble Peace Prize that you have to (misspell "Prize" and put it in parentheses).
Also Crowder didn't lie, he basically said "Nothing THIS CONTROVERSIAL has ever been pushed through." I guess it depends on your measurement of controversy.
I kind of feel sorry for you, I bet you sifted through at least TWO articles (WOW!), one from the NY Times and another from MSNBC, just to find that info for your response.
Really? Peace Prize recipients were commenting on the economic situation? To bad there's no Nobel Prize for Economics, because then these Economists wouldn't have to have a totally unrelated prize, and look like idiots... Or maybe if people with a Nobel in Economics has writtern the President they would have realized how beneficial tax cuts are. Further, I didn't hear Mr. Crowder say the Republicans never used Reconciliation, another thing you've made up.
Very funny. Next you can picked up by FOX and have a real show. Or better you can become governor, then quit, THEN get picked up by FOX, and laugh all the way to the bank on the thin veil of running for president in 2012.
This video is so onesided and ignorant I find it mindboggling anyone can take it seriously. And no, I'm not a liberal. I'm actually a paleoconservative.
@nowthisisstupid : What's so funny? To suggest that paying "volunteers" is common for liberals but not common for conservatives is just ignorant. Both the republican and democrat parties are equally bureaucratic, corrupt and corporate controlled. Neither represent the actual interests of the American people. In many ways, Crowder seems like a neocon version of Michael Moore and another Michael Moore is really NOT what this world needs.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Umm... excuse me but both my mom and my grandmother were republican party volunteers... My mother worked with our local city goverment and my grandmother helped the Bush administration and neither of them received wages. No the world does not need another Michael Moore I whole heartedly agree with that, however Steven Crowder is not a michael moore.
@nowthisisstupid : When I compare Steven Crowder with Michael Moore I see little difference besides one being a democrat and the other being a neocon. Both present a very distorted, onsided view on American politics in an attempt to present one political party in a positive daylight and the other in a negative daylight. Further, I have a lot of respect and admiration for paleocons like Ron Paul who dare to speak out, but neocons are no better than the Obamanation now running the US government.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Okay, I can certainly respect that. I may not agree totally, but I agree that political parties have taken their pov way to far. And the democrats and republicans fight way too much, they need to realize we are still a country, we are all still Americans and need to remember A house divided against itself cannot stand!
@nowthisisstupid : Actually, the division between republicans and democrats is mostly for show. Although most activists (like your family) are honest people who don't have a clue, the party top of both party pretty much represents the same corporate elite and represent views that only marginally differ from one another, none of which are actually in the interest of the American people. What you guys really need is a new revolution. I hope the Tea Party crowd will eventually figure that out.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I know it's for show on the national scale, however, in small towns like I live in it is not for show. The Republicans are heads and shoulders better above democrats. And sadly your political views choose whether you get a job, not your qualifications. I agree we need another revolution, and it's not a republican or democrat that we need in office it's someone that has independent views not collective views. Mass production and beliefs are rampant here.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker He may get a few things wrong here and there but after all he is human and makes mistakes, Michael Moore just said complete non-sense and tried to get me and you to believe it was true.
Paleoconservatism is more or less the same thing as Modern Liberaliism, so no surprise there. Why is one-sideness such a bad thing? We should teach the Time Cube in the same proportion as Physics?
@sgtkpf : Paleoconservatism is more or less the same thing as conservative libertarianism. Anyway, when I say onesidedness I mean intellectual dishonesty : showing only arguments that fit into the perspectives of one particular perspective, pretending that's all there is to say about the topic and therefore concluding that you're right. To judge which of different perspectives is correct, you must compare the arguments for those different perspectives.
Paleoconservatism is actually not that close to "conservative libertarianism," or what is actually Classical Liberalism. Firstly, Paleoconservatism's isolationism stands in starck contrast to Classical Liberalism's Free Trade ideals. One of the greatest thinkers in Paleoconservatism (Russel Kirk) was one of the most ardent Libertarian bashers. That being said, one-siddedness is not a bad thing. Many ideas just don't deserve equal time (again, Time Cube.) That being (cont.)
@sgtkpf : "Free trade" is a naive pipe dream that's totally unfeasible. You could say I'm a Nationalist Libertarian. Anyway, all this nitpicking on how to label certain views is quite irrelevant and a matter of semantics.
It's really not merely sementic. If you truly are a paleoconservative, like say, Edmund Burke, then you would be more inclined towards Statism (or at least towards something approaching it) and therefore would be ideologically closer to the Democrat party which Mr. Crowder clearly looks unfavorably upon. Therefore trying to show that even the Right disagrees with him, as you clearly were, is pretty intellectually dishonest.
@sgtkpf : I favor a strong economic governmental influence and a reestablishment of traditional pre-Christian European values, while at the same time allowing people to freely do with their own bodies and minds as they see fit under the condition people take the responsibilities that go with it. The ideology closest to my personal views is probably National-Anarchism, which doesn't really belong in any traditional category but is generally considered ULTRA-right by outsiders.
Precisely. The fact that you favor "strong economic governmental influence" separates you from nearly every modern "conservative" with or without moddifiers. And again, I am not arguing that what you propose is not extremely Right-Wing (though I'm not sure how what you described is in any way Anarchistic, or how Nationalism or Anarchy are not contradictory.) Rather I am arguing that political ideologies are not static, and that the reactionary Right resembles modern liberals
@sgtkpf : Not quite. You see, I'm from Europe and ever since the rise of Fascism there's always been a subculture of conservative-revolutionaries who reject the idea of a free market because they consider it no less a threat than communism. I would not say these people resemble the common liberal, though. They rather resemble classic anarchists (as strange as thay may sound). To quote Eduard Limonov : " There's no longer any left or right. There's the system and the enemies of the system ".
Firstly, I will concede that I can not speak to what constitutes Right/Left in Europe as well as you... simply because I do not live there. However, as I understand the parties in Great Britain, for example, the Conservative Party seeks movement towards a free market, as opposed to the Left wing Labour Party.
@sgtkpf : In my country, the mainstream political spectrum is largely divided between a moderately liberal free market corporate party, a formerly Christian-conservative yet now secularised moderately liberal party and an very liberal socialist party. Beyond that, however, there's a whole spectrum of parties and ideologies and most of the real conservatives lean towards the support of a fairly strong state. In Europe, traditional conservatism still has roots in pre-revolution monarchism.
said, I do agree in getting every side of the story. However that is not the obligation of the presenter. Rather, as a viewer of the video, you should seek out other view points, as opposed to expecting every pundit to present every side. Finally, as a practical matter, the right needs to b attack dogs to some extent. The Left certainly has more than their fair-share. And unlike Mr. Crowder, most Leftist attack dogs opperate under the guise of objectivity.
@sgtkpf : Isn't "Fair & Balanced" slogan of FOX? Both neocons and liberals dominate the media to the point other perspectives are rarely ever heard and both kinds of media like to pretend they're objective. Different perspectives (Paleoconservative, Anarchist, Fascist, Communist, ... perspective) are ignored and as such the masses have only a limited understanding of the political diversity that really exist and they're forced to accept a corporate sponsored division between black and white.
Fair an Balanced is the slogan of Fox. The only problem with that line of argument is that it is utterly irrelevant. I was not saying that Fox's slogan is accurate. And while it is true that the media is predominantly Neocon/Modern Liberal, Fox specifically has been introducing more and more Neoliberal and Libertarian leaning hosts. That being said, Fox, MSNBC, CNN are not the only media outlets in the world. No one is forced to accept them. Heard of the internet?
@sgtkpf : MOST people are too ignorant or too naive not to realise the media lies to them on a consistent basis and many of them do not ever check out any dissident views on the Internet. Also, there have been various calls to censor the Internet more in the future and I suspect it will be less than a decade before dissident views are eliminated on the Internet as well. You're underestimating the importance of subjective reporting and its influence on people's ignorance.
I agree that by and large the masses are not intelligent. My point would be "So?" While almost always cheaper, many of Wal-Mart's goods can be pretty shoddily put together. Should they have to present me with advertisements explaining this? Most people would recognize such a mandate as ridiculous. Why should the marketplace of ideas be any different from the marketplace of goods? Either way it's irrelevant.(cont.)
@sgtkpf : I actually STRONGLY object to commercial advertising because it leads to unfair competition of wealthy corporations over poor corporations, it distorts the image people have of a product's quality, it increases prices for no good reason, it makes gullible people buy things they do not need and it's utterly annoying to watch and hear every time I turn on a TV or radio. There is nothing benign about advertising besides perhaps its ability to make non-commercial websites viable.
Firstly, "unfair competition" is a contradiction in terms. However, that is neither here nor there. That being said, perhaps I just picked a bad analogy. The fact remains that subjectivity is not a vice. In fact it seems a bit lazy to me to demand that every opinion present all sides of an issue. How does Mr. Crowder benefit from showing you the other side of the argument? He is not blocking you from hearing other arguments, but just isn't showing them to you. (cont)
@sgtkpf : By giving a distorted image of both neoliberals and neoconservatives, Crowder misinforms people much in the same way Michael Moore does. If you are not at least trying to give a balanced and honest perspective, you are misguiding the masses and I see no way to defend such a position as it is pure manipulation.
You keep labeling Mr. Crowder as a necon. This is either because you do not know what a neocon is, you are trying to discredit him via a term generally used as a perjorative, or both. Futher, you seem to be of the impression that Neoliberalism and Modern Liberalism are the same thing. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Further, I suspect that this is why you seemed so defensive when I correctly pointed that you are essentially a Modern Liberal.
@sgtkpf : I'm essentially a modern liberal? That's quite funny, since it couldn't be further from the truth. I don't particularly adhere to any specific ideology, but my main influences are the European New Right, National-Anarchism, National-Socialism, Fascism, Classic Anarchism, Paleoconvervatism and Libertarianism. I know some of these influences sound contradictory, but that's because my views vary strongly between state influence and individual freedom on different issues.
Your self-proclaimed stance of strong Government influence in economics and decreased regulation elsewhere is precisely the rhetoric of the American Left. While the Democrats actually support things like gun control and smoking bans. However, they claim to have exactly the positions that you claim to have.
@sgtkpf : AS I said : my views are VERY diverse. I object to globalist capitalism, I object to multiculturalism, I object to any tax on labor, while I support the legalisation of most narcotics (I'm still undecided on cocaine, heroin and meth), I support a return to PRE-Christian traditional European values and I prefer a technocratic system over a democratic system or republic.
@sgtkpf : Why do I consider Crowder a neocon? I guess its because all of his onesided videos that I've seen very much reflect the perspective of the GOP and FOX with regards to political issues for as much as I can tell from my exposure to them as a European. Neoconservatism is pretty irrelevant out here, so I have to judge the ideology by analysing the GOP.
Esspecially considering recent events, it is obscene to label the GOP at large as Neoconservative. It certainly has a Neocon wing. However it ignores great thinkers such as Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, Rand Paul, Ronald Reagan, and that's just off the top of my head. It includes neocons, neoliberals, Libertarians, Classical Liberals, Paleoconservatives, and Conservatives. Mr. Crowder very well may be a neocon, but not based solely on this video.
@sgtkpf : The Neocons dominate the GOP on a national level. I'm certain that at a local level many paleocons, libertarians and people of other ideologies are still actively supporting their community, but at a national level they have been made irrelevant. Look at how Ron Paul was shoved aside and ridiculed by the media during the last elections, even though he was probably the ONLY candidate to actually support the interests of the American people.
You're wrong. You simply are wrong that neocons "dominate" the GOP on the National level. There are a lot. Don't get me wrong. However it is a mischaracterization to say they dominate it. If that's the case, explain the unanimous opposition to Socialized Healthcare. Further, yo can nt blame the actions of the media on the GOP. The treatment of Paul would have been laughable if it wasn't infuriating. But they shat on McCain too, the definition of a Neocon.
@sgtkpf : Americans don't like Socialized Healthcare because they're raised into believing that everything that reeks like socialism is baaaad. It's a cultural thing, really. Openly advocating Socialized Healthcare in the US is similar to openly acknowledging that Christianity is primitive superstition. It's just too sensitive and no politician can openly make such a claim without risking political suicide. It's amazing Obama got this far in spite of that. Of course he owes a lot to media spin!!
It's true that most Americans opposed to Socialized medicine oppose it because it is a buzzword. However, not all do. Not by a long shot. Many people have seen the atrocities that are the Canadian or British systems. Or they have seen the single worst example of Socialized medicine in the world, the VA/Military Health System. Anyone who has been in the military has seen that its Health System is everything that Socialized Medicine is accused of, and worse.
@sgtkpf : I actually live in Belgium, a country with socialized medicine yet still enough freedom to choose your own MD, your own hospital, etc. It's one of the best health care systems in the world. In fact, Belgium is one of the most prosperous nations in the world (way more prosperous than the US) and the social safety net we have is thé most loved aspect of government in my country... one of the few aspects most people support actually.
@sgtkpf : Further, there is a tendency by the media to demonize the presidential candidate of whichever party is supposed to lose the election. When Bush had to win the election, they ridiculed Gore. When Obama had to win the election, they ridiculed McCain. This is the way the illusion of democracy is created. As the media manipulates public opinion, the masses believe they freely chose their president while they actually follow a script. The treatment of Paul was exceptional, though !
Now again, you are commenting on the media situation in the US to someone who actually lives there, and you are not correct. The media has a tendency to ridicule whomever they are not going to vote for. 9 times out of 10 that is the Republican. With the exception of Fox News, who is the exact opposite. That's why Fox ridiculed Obama, and MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN all ridiculed McCain. The same for Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore, Clinton/Dole.
@sgtkpf : As I said, the media has a tendency to ridicule whomever they do not want you to vote for. Sometimes that's a Republican, sometimes that's a Democrat. It doesn't really matter since both parties differ only in minor details and are both bought by the same corporate elite.
It's the difference between me stealing your food on one hand and not cooking for you on the other. Further, you are wrong about advertising having only one purpose. The fact is, advertising creates billions of dollars of wealth every year, and consequently providesthousands (if not more) jobs. I certainly don't veiw that as a bad thing.
@sgtkpf : So advertising companies create unnecessary jobs and make money from other companies. Big deal ! While multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations spend enough money to feed hundreds of thousands of people on advertising to artificially strengthen their already very powerful position, they make every effort to save money on production and see no problem in transferring their entire production offshore to places where people work like slaves to produce inferior products for peanuts
Is more people having jobs really a bad thing? Is that honestly what you're arguing here? Because I'm willing to bet the people who hold those jobs don't think they're "useless." Nor do the people who buy the product that ad companies produce. You are arguing something that raises the standard of living of millions of people is a bad thing. Good luck trying to sell that idea. This idea that you have that free trade is a result of advertising is ridiculous. (cont)
@sgtkpf : You're mixing up different things here. I just said that the advertising industry is an unnecessary industry that drains money from other industries, generates unfair competition and is plain annoying. If you care about the extra job it creates, an alternative would be to tax these corporations with the amount of money they're now spending on advertising and use it to create jobs to actually improve our living... like better and cheaper social services.
We are 100% that MOST advertising is annoying. However, your statements suggest an ignorance of economics. An industry that creates wealth is not draining money from other industries. However, taxing in and of itself destroys wealth. That is precisely why it should not be done. However advertising brings individuals to the corporation. This benefits all stakeholders of the corporation. This improves their living, and the living on the people they give that money to.
@sgtkpf : It's your statements that suggest an ignorance of economics. First of all, wealth is not created with consumtion. Wealth is just transferred from one person to the other and the larger corporations get the more money flows from the lower and middle classes to a tiny cabal or multi-billionaires who consistently drain the economy. They get richer and everyone else gets poorer.
Taxing does not destroy wealth. It just turns over wealth to the state, which it can then redistribute.
I never said that wealth is created through consumption. Rather through production, which is then consumed. You are putting words in my mouth, and you're still wrong. When regulation is decreased wealth increases for the rich, but it also increases for the poor. Again, your invention of "facts" suggest an ignorance of economics which you will make up history to attempt to prove.
@sgtkpf : Wealth is not created through production either. The real wealth consists of the resources themselves. Anyway, when regulation is decreased it increases exploitation of the weak by the strong and as such this benefits only the rich. The attrocious conditions of 19th century Western-Europe are a perfect example of this, but I don't expect an American to understand the complexities of economics... You call me ignorant, yet you Americans are more ignorant than I deemed possible today.
You are 100% wrong. "Wealth" is not money. Money is slips of paper or chuncks of metal. Wealth is the sum total of goods (both physical and not) and services that a country produces. Ahh yes. Americans are ignorant of Economics. That's why Hayek performed most of his work here. Also Milton Friedman, a real idiot. Also that US city Chicago. It doesn't have the SINGLE BEST economic school in the world. You spout nonsense and accuse people who prove you wrong of being ignorant.
@sgtkpf : I never said that wealth is money. I'm just saying that wealth is never produced. Labor, services and resources are a form of wealth as well and different forms of wealth are just exchanged for other forms of wealth.
Maybe Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman are idiots. Maybe they're just elitists who desire the freedom to freely exploit others. I can't really say. I do know, however, that a so-called "free market" is a nightmare.
@sgtkpf : Nash was a genius mathematician. That doesn't make him a great economist. The economy does follow mathematical principles but mathematics are oblivious to human nature and culture.
.... It would apear you are really confused... I was reffering to Nash's Nobel Prize in economics as proof that he had a great Economic mind. While I understand that the Prize has very little value, being from Europe and all, still kind of a good gauge as to whether someone is good at a particular subject.
@sgtkpf : Nash won the Nobel Prize for his MATHEMATICAL work that just happened to have an effect on economic theory. I agree, though, that the Prize has little value.... IN SPITE OF it being from Europe ;-)
He won the prize in economics. That's like saying the invention of the internet "just happened" to have an effect on Computer Science.... Again, it was the Economics Prize that he won....
Yes. I am well acquainted with his idea. It is very clear that you do not. You have repeatedly claimed that his Nobel Prize for Economics was utterly unrelated to economics. That's just plain stupid.
Further, taxation ABSOLUTELY destroys wealth. Again, you don't even have an elementary grasp of economics. Wealth is created when a good or service is produced. Money is nothing more than a certificate representing that wealth. People are given these certificates for creating wealth. Then the Government comes in and takes the money (not wealth) for not having produced anything. By paying itself for not having produced anything, it decreases the per dollar value of wealth.
@sgtkpf : Just because I don't but into the brainwashing you've fell for, that doesn't mean I don't understand economics. Anyway, wealth is never created but merely exchanged. When governments tax, wealth changes hands from private to collective ownership. This wealth, however, is redistributed to the public by means of social services, infrastructure, etc. Governments actually do something with the money they take from you, you know?!
Wealth is ABSOLUTELY created. The fact that you do not understand this proves you have 0 understanding of economics. Which is worth more? A handful of sand, or a silicon microchip? Resources have value. When the resources are formed into a useful good, they have a higher value. That is how wealth is created. But the Government does not take WEALTH. They take money. Those are not the same thing. They take money for not having created a good or service. That destroys wealth.
See, herein lies the basic misunderstanding of economics. The microchip has a greater value than the three parts do individually. Attribute it to the plans, the R/D, whatever. It has a greater value. That is the creation of wealth. Further, even if you are correct, labor is created on a daily basis. And yes, I get what Government does. The point is no new good is created. Government takes money, devaling it, and gives it ou, devaluing it. Nothing is produced.
@sgtkpf : Governments use taxes to provide services. These services create welfare. It's totally ignorant to claim that governments produce nothing at all.
You clearly don't understand what money is. Money in and of itself has no value. Money is given to people in return for the good/servidce they produce. The Government is "paid" through taxes despite not having created a good or service. Because those slips of paper are not correlated to some good or service, they become just slips of paper. Then, in the Welfare State, the slips of paper are handed over to someone else who did not produce anything. It is devalued again.
@sgtkpf : You clearly don't seem to understand that governments DO create a hell of a lof of services, some of which need a steady supply of goods. It does generate a lot of welfare that you somehow keep ignoring.
You are mischarecterizing my argument. Welfare State programs (not all programs for example the military is not a Welfare state program) assign slips of paper to individuals who did not create anything. They are paid for not producing a good or service. Ergo, those dollars are meaningless. How is it you think that paper money not tied to wealth are worth anything other then the paper they're printed on?
Firstly, Healthcare workers are not, in the United States, Government employees. Therefore that point is moot. Secondly, public education is not a part of the welfare state. Thirdly, again, educators are not Federal employees. So despite the fact that you are wrong about everything you attempted to posit here, you still accuse others of not having a clue?
Haha. I'm hopeless because I won't be persuaded by your inaccurate information? Here in the States the word for that is reasonable, not hopeless. You have proven you have no comprehension of basic economics, of civics, of history, or of common sense. For example, you claim that greed is not innate in humans, while you're clearly greedy!! You demand the fruits of others' labor. Nothing could be more greedy.
@sgtkpf : You pay money to government --> government pays money to third parties --> third parties provide services like education and health care. That's how taxes provide services and if you don't get that you're a moron.
The fact that you have REPEATEDLY refused to answer my charge, I will assume that you recognize that I am right and you are wrong. I have said repeatedly that it is Welfare State programs that do not produce wealth. Social Security insurance does not create wealth. Welfare does not create wealth. Further, if I pay the third party directly, that creates wealth. The middle man step of the Government is still a transaction that devalues the dollar and destroys wealth.
I thought this was a video about Occupy Wall Street :P
KafirsWithHarbitude 2 months ago in playlist More videos from StevenCrowder
And that worked well for Detroit. LOL
HJW81253212 5 months ago
Why are you always "toning" your muscles when you address people? You wanna show of your hard work's pay? I can wank with both arms too!
VonManavis 5 months ago
@VonManavis And those are his GOOD qualities! =D lol
pignanelli 5 months ago
I love all the fingerpointing. It's really pushing the US in the right direction.
dedsall78 6 months ago
@dedsall78 Exactly.
pignanelli 5 months ago
so wait, the entire fund (in the big circle) is slightly larger than three of the small circles around the corporate lobbyist version of that chart (when factored individually, not all together, like in the big circle), so that would mean that... ARITHMETIC IS A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY! No wonder he doesn't cite sources, they use the evil marxist trick of MATH! ... wait, if addition is a lie, then the actual view count of this video is more like 100 hits or so!
JonasPlanck 6 months ago
My god Steven Crowder, I sense another Glenn Beck!
Babs44sun 6 months ago
are they still hireing? I got student loans to pay and ill act like a hippie liberal if it means getting a paying job with these nutbars.
shaqdaddy11 6 months ago
And your point would be... ? That there is much more money in liberal/humanist political views than conservative/corporatist political views....? Sorry, I have to disagree.
pignanelli 6 months ago
@pignanelli The fact that you consider Liberals to be humanists and Conservatives to be corporatists would suggest that you lack the political education to disagree with what he's said.
Supermassively 5 months ago
@Supermassively It would certainly depend on how you define your terms. (Education, in your case, with all due respect.)
pignanelli 5 months ago
@pignanelli Yeah, it does. I suppose if your definition of "education" is "mindless, irrational indoctrination by radical, pseudo-intellectual college professors", you're highly educated.
Supermassively 5 months ago 2
@enjolrassnape I agree that the Founders were only human, but you have your facts wrong. The 3/5ths (not 3/8ths) clause referred to slaves, not particular ethnicities. Southern slave owners wanted slaves to have a full vote, so they could control their slaves' votes and thus the government, and so ensure slavery would continue. The 3/5ths compromise weighed the hatred most of the Founders felt toward slavery with the need to have support from the southern states.
notjoshing 6 months ago
I once had to fly over San Fransisco on my way home from a vacation... I washed off the hippie the same way when I got home.
XD
I love your videos, you are hilarious and God Bless
DukeofUSA 6 months ago
Conservative all the way
Freelancer581 7 months ago
ahahahah Yessss wash off the dirty hippy lol
ORYGUN11x 8 months ago
lol FOX isnt ever gonna hire you GOODLUCK though
pattimac373 8 months ago
PETULA OIL! ERRRRGH!
georgesorosisgay1 9 months ago
You must not have had too much eau-de-hippie on you - no one teargassed and tazed you.
ObiWanShinobi1 9 months ago
Why are you criticizing her sweater? What else is she supposed to wear? Whenever you buy something, it goes to capitalism.
ventures58 9 months ago
Pelosi sux!
TheSkeetergirl 11 months ago
I need to take a shower like that everday after I get out of class
TheChaoticJoker 11 months ago
I tried googling the "non-profit" you interviewed with and came up with nothing. Is this what you were talking about? calperks(dot)com/index.html. Can you please post more sources and truly inform the American public? Hmm, maybe I should start my own show where I act like jock and pull things out of my ass, yet make it sound convincing enough or complicated enough to fool the gullible American public. Now I see what George Carlin was talking about: ?v=ILwOQV32rHg
guikubivan 1 year ago
@guikubivan Lol! You're a fucking nutjob,
ZM7241994 11 months ago
Comment removed
guikubivan 10 months ago
@guikubivan One month and this is the best comeback you got?
ZM7241994 10 months ago
@ZM7241994 lol, you said nothing, there is nothing to "do a comeback" to....
guikubivan 10 months ago
@guikubivan I insulted you, and so you need to insult me back or at least try. That's how this game is played.
ZM7241994 10 months ago
@ZM7241994 Oh I see. Thanks for your insults, but you can keep them to yourself, I've got no use for them.
guikubivan 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZM7241994 At least I explain myself and don't just post baseless insults like a child.
guikubivan 10 months ago
@guikubivan So yes, shes believe the comedian George Carlin, who never studied anything about political-science or economics instead of the guy who caught the liberal organizartion redhanded in their propaganda machine.
GermanConquistador08 10 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Dude, Steven Crowder's background is in comedy and like Carlin didn't study shit. The only difference is that Carlin wasn't a political puppet and told it like it was. Read Crowder's biography yourself: imdb(.)com/name/nm0189589/bio
guikubivan 10 months ago
@guikubivan I read the biography you posted, which was laced with attacks on his character, so instead I looked at both the wikipedia article on him, and the statements on his personal website. Carlin did NOT tell it like it is. He used as much hyperbole in his political and social rants as much as any other comedian did/does. Also think about thisL If you're a conservative comedian, you're a puppet, but if you're a liberal comedian no matter HOW inaccurate you are, you're a genius. Nice.
GermanConquistador08 10 months ago 9
Comment removed
guikubivan 1 year ago
Paranoid Pelosi who thinks anyone who opposes her is funded by the oil companies. We need to send Pelosi to a mental health facility.
ZM7241994 1 year ago
Shower with a wire brush & finish with DDT, Dude!
specialtymachining 1 year ago
At 5:08 to the end of the video he became Glenn Beak. Insted of chalk he has a marker and he has a white board insted of a chalk board.
BladeBFoster 1 year ago
UHHH THE TEA PARTY IS FUNDED BY THE OIL KOCH BROTHERS
tomas6262 1 year ago
@tomas6262 UH! The demeocrats have gotten more funding from private sector unions than ever major US corporation to Republicans...EVER.
GermanConquistador08 10 months ago
Hey a youtube version of sean hannity.Yay for oil.steven youre a peice of shit corporatist
tomas6262 1 year ago
how was the delousing powder? LOL. Great Job Steven!
sandorsbox 1 year ago
Very illuminating, illustrative, and unsettling. Thanks... I'm outraged. The time has come to bring back the citizen posse.
igotta9 1 year ago 17
Your a hero.
andlee71694 1 year ago 3
haha nice vid
melvar52 1 year ago
Hippy don't wash off.
viper4358 1 year ago
uhhh hippy doesnt wash off!
BigDirtyBasterd 1 year ago
ok, so there all scumbags. Does that mean I stop caring about the environment or accept that it's alright that people get filthy rich when the rich promotes waste pollution selfishness and causes the suffering of so many because of them and their actions?
Ahhh, nope
It's clear that Mr. Muscles has never gotten the short end of the stick
TraxTheAlien 1 year ago
That foam was way too clean. Washing off filthy hippie should have turned it brown.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
tea party all the way
mebben101 1 year ago
can anyone tell me what that theme song he has is? or did he record it himself?
solidsnakec20 1 year ago
So what did you do after she offered you the job? Never call again? Tell her you weren't interested? What? I felt kinda left hanging.
gutsyt123 1 year ago
only one thing to say f!@$ the dems
mardosdark 1 year ago
"Delouse him boys!" Saving the best line for last....ya dirty little monkey...lol
ZoomieMSgt 1 year ago
they ARE TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY WITH BEARS - if the "BEAR" is "RUSSIA", yes, and with the help of the "dragon", or "China"
Dadutta 1 year ago
Darn it! For being astroturf, I got screwed. LOL!
conservative608 1 year ago
33000? That's a heck of a lot of money.
That's a normal years salary in Sweden.
And all you have to do is spread propaganda? For 33000 dollars?
Perhaps I should move to the states?
swecMortifer666 1 year ago
@swecMortifer666 No, the job he applied for was a canvassing/organizer job, which is not the same at all as just a grassroots volunteer. The point of the job he applied for is to mobilize communities toward a common cause. The people he mobilizes are all unpaid volunteers, just like people that are going to these Tea Party rallies. The difference is CalPIRG isn't going to pay these people to go to rallies, whereas Americans for Prosperity and Faces of Coal pay for their travel, lodge and food
hlambert12 1 year ago
You might want to check your facts on the previous use of 'Reconciliation', under GW Bush it was used.
Jaggling 1 year ago
College know-it-all hippies, LOL
Einstejn 1 year ago
Nancy Pelosi scares the fuck out of me. And I'm a liberal/democratic socialist. Don't know what the hell she is. Maybe Rasputin's clone. Or the Wicked Witch of the West.'
"And I need to go wash off the filthy hippy." Fucking funny.
XxTurtleManxX 1 year ago
@XxTurtleManxX I'd say Rasputin's forgotten daughter. She's still alive since she wasn't shot, stabbed, drowned, or beaten. The Russians foolishly spared her dark soul.
QuarantaSette47 1 year ago
Nancy Pelosi scares the fuck out of me. And I'm a liberal/democratic socialist. Don't know what the hell she is. Maybe Rasputin's clone. Or the Wicked Witch of the West.
XxTurtleManxX 1 year ago
3:53-3:59
Soooooo........you are against integrated schools. Nice to know. Also what happened to the whole 'we're a republic not a democracy' conservative talking point? Doesn't work for you here dose it?
jack5051525354 1 year ago
Beware bears. Beware the Chicago Bears!!!
ArodWingfoot 1 year ago
and I need to go wash off the filthy hippy LOL
Patiencechurch 1 year ago
This guy is so gay.
odinata 1 year ago
I love your skits. The board on this was great. Reminded me of Glenn Beck.
LNC4EVERYUS 1 year ago
I can't help but notice, Steven, that when the Leftists post comments, they almost always bring up a subject that has nothing to do with your video. They don't counter anything that you've said in the video. It's more like, "Yeah, well, what about when the Republicans ... (insert irrelevant nonsense here)?" Or my favorite: calling Republicans "fascists." Please, go do some reading and come back when you actually know the definition of the word "fascist."
backwoodsninja 1 year ago 3
@backwoodsninja Man! You nailed that one one the head! Yessss. (Note: not sarcastic)
MaScotheneyfield 1 year ago
@backwoodsninja Well fascism is a lot like corporatism.
BWeav10 1 year ago
You should put subtitles man, I cant understand her @.@
Alenthas 1 year ago
Holy shit, the old people found a guy whose all smartified and less turtle-like to represent them! Are they making a comeback?
hehehehe.....
noooo.....
:P
Johnsen2012 1 year ago
Steven, you may be gay, but you still stick it to those pesky liberals!
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata hes not gay
eustacefan 1 year ago
@eustacefan You mean he just looks gay and acts gay?
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata hes cute
eustacefan 1 year ago
@eustacefan
Most gay guys are very conscious of their looks.
odinata 1 year ago
Obviously both sides buy their candidates into office. The difference is, the Right serves the corporations, the Left serves the people (usually, sometimes they fuck us over too)
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 More then usually, it has been estimated on the lower end of 99% of the time.
BWeav10 1 year ago
i love this guy because he teaches us that democrats are corrupt and that no single republican politician ever is. Nor are republican politicians and pastors who SCREAM out against homosexuality ever really in closet homosexuals who happen to be Extreme hypocrites.
alvisc2002 1 year ago
Hey Steven tell these Liberals how their president just signed a republican bill to allow for offshore drilling Even after this Entire mess with British Petroleum to fuck up our entire eco system.
or how he expanded on the patriot act bush created.
you know the same Bush who ordered the national guard and the military to TAKE Peoples guns away.
Obama. Best Republican President Ever!! lol
alvisc2002 1 year ago
reconciliation! oh no! republicans have never used that!
oh wait, theyve used it more than democrats...or did you forget that piece of history crowder?
alx90x 1 year ago
GREAT JOB! keep it up! and get more 'undercover' work in on these lol
ReynoldsCPAC 1 year ago
"Capitalism's okay when it makes nice sweaters." LOL
angelvi 1 year ago 7
Raising money to pay them because they aren't rich jackass.
thefredsays 1 year ago
Crowder, where are you? I miss your weekly commentary.
WeVoteRight 1 year ago
someones a fan of the shawshank redemption, lol
TJmarian 1 year ago
Maybe if he wasn't making such stupid joke, he'd learn hes a total fucktard.
onfirealex 1 year ago
Big is Oil is Bad!!!!!!
Thar was No Filibuster by the "R"
In the bush years the "R" used Recnciliation so stop Biching!!!!!!!!!!
LDPP 1 year ago
Republican's pushed through highly controversial tax cuts in 2003 using reconciliation. Vote was 50-50 with Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. 400 top economists (including many noble peace price laureates) wrote President Bush saying that these tax cuts would hurt the average American and increase inequality.
Again Crowder lies.
Ladiestreat 1 year ago
@Ladiestreat Yes because as we've seen very recently it takes SO much to earn a Noble Peace Prize that you have to (misspell "Prize" and put it in parentheses).
Also Crowder didn't lie, he basically said "Nothing THIS CONTROVERSIAL has ever been pushed through." I guess it depends on your measurement of controversy.
I kind of feel sorry for you, I bet you sifted through at least TWO articles (WOW!), one from the NY Times and another from MSNBC, just to find that info for your response.
JamesWolfe08 1 year ago
@Ladiestreat
Really? Peace Prize recipients were commenting on the economic situation? To bad there's no Nobel Prize for Economics, because then these Economists wouldn't have to have a totally unrelated prize, and look like idiots... Or maybe if people with a Nobel in Economics has writtern the President they would have realized how beneficial tax cuts are. Further, I didn't hear Mr. Crowder say the Republicans never used Reconciliation, another thing you've made up.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
Very funny. Next you can picked up by FOX and have a real show. Or better you can become governor, then quit, THEN get picked up by FOX, and laugh all the way to the bank on the thin veil of running for president in 2012.
madsquare 1 year ago
This video is so onesided and ignorant I find it mindboggling anyone can take it seriously. And no, I'm not a liberal. I'm actually a paleoconservative.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Hahahahaha out of the box for sure.
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
@nowthisisstupid : What's so funny? To suggest that paying "volunteers" is common for liberals but not common for conservatives is just ignorant. Both the republican and democrat parties are equally bureaucratic, corrupt and corporate controlled. Neither represent the actual interests of the American people. In many ways, Crowder seems like a neocon version of Michael Moore and another Michael Moore is really NOT what this world needs.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Umm... excuse me but both my mom and my grandmother were republican party volunteers... My mother worked with our local city goverment and my grandmother helped the Bush administration and neither of them received wages. No the world does not need another Michael Moore I whole heartedly agree with that, however Steven Crowder is not a michael moore.
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
@nowthisisstupid : When I compare Steven Crowder with Michael Moore I see little difference besides one being a democrat and the other being a neocon. Both present a very distorted, onsided view on American politics in an attempt to present one political party in a positive daylight and the other in a negative daylight. Further, I have a lot of respect and admiration for paleocons like Ron Paul who dare to speak out, but neocons are no better than the Obamanation now running the US government.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Okay, I can certainly respect that. I may not agree totally, but I agree that political parties have taken their pov way to far. And the democrats and republicans fight way too much, they need to realize we are still a country, we are all still Americans and need to remember A house divided against itself cannot stand!
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
@nowthisisstupid : Actually, the division between republicans and democrats is mostly for show. Although most activists (like your family) are honest people who don't have a clue, the party top of both party pretty much represents the same corporate elite and represent views that only marginally differ from one another, none of which are actually in the interest of the American people. What you guys really need is a new revolution. I hope the Tea Party crowd will eventually figure that out.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I know it's for show on the national scale, however, in small towns like I live in it is not for show. The Republicans are heads and shoulders better above democrats. And sadly your political views choose whether you get a job, not your qualifications. I agree we need another revolution, and it's not a republican or democrat that we need in office it's someone that has independent views not collective views. Mass production and beliefs are rampant here.
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
@nowthisisstupid : Besides our perspective on Steven Crowder we seems to agree. Let's not move onto any other issues and spoil it ;-)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Haha good idea!
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker He may get a few things wrong here and there but after all he is human and makes mistakes, Michael Moore just said complete non-sense and tried to get me and you to believe it was true.
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Paleoconservatism is more or less the same thing as Modern Liberaliism, so no surprise there. Why is one-sideness such a bad thing? We should teach the Time Cube in the same proportion as Physics?
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Paleoconservatism is more or less the same thing as conservative libertarianism. Anyway, when I say onesidedness I mean intellectual dishonesty : showing only arguments that fit into the perspectives of one particular perspective, pretending that's all there is to say about the topic and therefore concluding that you're right. To judge which of different perspectives is correct, you must compare the arguments for those different perspectives.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Paleoconservatism is actually not that close to "conservative libertarianism," or what is actually Classical Liberalism. Firstly, Paleoconservatism's isolationism stands in starck contrast to Classical Liberalism's Free Trade ideals. One of the greatest thinkers in Paleoconservatism (Russel Kirk) was one of the most ardent Libertarian bashers. That being said, one-siddedness is not a bad thing. Many ideas just don't deserve equal time (again, Time Cube.) That being (cont.)
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : "Free trade" is a naive pipe dream that's totally unfeasible. You could say I'm a Nationalist Libertarian. Anyway, all this nitpicking on how to label certain views is quite irrelevant and a matter of semantics.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
It's really not merely sementic. If you truly are a paleoconservative, like say, Edmund Burke, then you would be more inclined towards Statism (or at least towards something approaching it) and therefore would be ideologically closer to the Democrat party which Mr. Crowder clearly looks unfavorably upon. Therefore trying to show that even the Right disagrees with him, as you clearly were, is pretty intellectually dishonest.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : I favor a strong economic governmental influence and a reestablishment of traditional pre-Christian European values, while at the same time allowing people to freely do with their own bodies and minds as they see fit under the condition people take the responsibilities that go with it. The ideology closest to my personal views is probably National-Anarchism, which doesn't really belong in any traditional category but is generally considered ULTRA-right by outsiders.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Precisely. The fact that you favor "strong economic governmental influence" separates you from nearly every modern "conservative" with or without moddifiers. And again, I am not arguing that what you propose is not extremely Right-Wing (though I'm not sure how what you described is in any way Anarchistic, or how Nationalism or Anarchy are not contradictory.) Rather I am arguing that political ideologies are not static, and that the reactionary Right resembles modern liberals
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Not quite. You see, I'm from Europe and ever since the rise of Fascism there's always been a subculture of conservative-revolutionaries who reject the idea of a free market because they consider it no less a threat than communism. I would not say these people resemble the common liberal, though. They rather resemble classic anarchists (as strange as thay may sound). To quote Eduard Limonov : " There's no longer any left or right. There's the system and the enemies of the system ".
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Firstly, I will concede that I can not speak to what constitutes Right/Left in Europe as well as you... simply because I do not live there. However, as I understand the parties in Great Britain, for example, the Conservative Party seeks movement towards a free market, as opposed to the Left wing Labour Party.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : In my country, the mainstream political spectrum is largely divided between a moderately liberal free market corporate party, a formerly Christian-conservative yet now secularised moderately liberal party and an very liberal socialist party. Beyond that, however, there's a whole spectrum of parties and ideologies and most of the real conservatives lean towards the support of a fairly strong state. In Europe, traditional conservatism still has roots in pre-revolution monarchism.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
said, I do agree in getting every side of the story. However that is not the obligation of the presenter. Rather, as a viewer of the video, you should seek out other view points, as opposed to expecting every pundit to present every side. Finally, as a practical matter, the right needs to b attack dogs to some extent. The Left certainly has more than their fair-share. And unlike Mr. Crowder, most Leftist attack dogs opperate under the guise of objectivity.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Isn't "Fair & Balanced" slogan of FOX? Both neocons and liberals dominate the media to the point other perspectives are rarely ever heard and both kinds of media like to pretend they're objective. Different perspectives (Paleoconservative, Anarchist, Fascist, Communist, ... perspective) are ignored and as such the masses have only a limited understanding of the political diversity that really exist and they're forced to accept a corporate sponsored division between black and white.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Fair an Balanced is the slogan of Fox. The only problem with that line of argument is that it is utterly irrelevant. I was not saying that Fox's slogan is accurate. And while it is true that the media is predominantly Neocon/Modern Liberal, Fox specifically has been introducing more and more Neoliberal and Libertarian leaning hosts. That being said, Fox, MSNBC, CNN are not the only media outlets in the world. No one is forced to accept them. Heard of the internet?
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : MOST people are too ignorant or too naive not to realise the media lies to them on a consistent basis and many of them do not ever check out any dissident views on the Internet. Also, there have been various calls to censor the Internet more in the future and I suspect it will be less than a decade before dissident views are eliminated on the Internet as well. You're underestimating the importance of subjective reporting and its influence on people's ignorance.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
I agree that by and large the masses are not intelligent. My point would be "So?" While almost always cheaper, many of Wal-Mart's goods can be pretty shoddily put together. Should they have to present me with advertisements explaining this? Most people would recognize such a mandate as ridiculous. Why should the marketplace of ideas be any different from the marketplace of goods? Either way it's irrelevant.(cont.)
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : I actually STRONGLY object to commercial advertising because it leads to unfair competition of wealthy corporations over poor corporations, it distorts the image people have of a product's quality, it increases prices for no good reason, it makes gullible people buy things they do not need and it's utterly annoying to watch and hear every time I turn on a TV or radio. There is nothing benign about advertising besides perhaps its ability to make non-commercial websites viable.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Firstly, "unfair competition" is a contradiction in terms. However, that is neither here nor there. That being said, perhaps I just picked a bad analogy. The fact remains that subjectivity is not a vice. In fact it seems a bit lazy to me to demand that every opinion present all sides of an issue. How does Mr. Crowder benefit from showing you the other side of the argument? He is not blocking you from hearing other arguments, but just isn't showing them to you. (cont)
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : By giving a distorted image of both neoliberals and neoconservatives, Crowder misinforms people much in the same way Michael Moore does. If you are not at least trying to give a balanced and honest perspective, you are misguiding the masses and I see no way to defend such a position as it is pure manipulation.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
You keep labeling Mr. Crowder as a necon. This is either because you do not know what a neocon is, you are trying to discredit him via a term generally used as a perjorative, or both. Futher, you seem to be of the impression that Neoliberalism and Modern Liberalism are the same thing. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Further, I suspect that this is why you seemed so defensive when I correctly pointed that you are essentially a Modern Liberal.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : I'm essentially a modern liberal? That's quite funny, since it couldn't be further from the truth. I don't particularly adhere to any specific ideology, but my main influences are the European New Right, National-Anarchism, National-Socialism, Fascism, Classic Anarchism, Paleoconvervatism and Libertarianism. I know some of these influences sound contradictory, but that's because my views vary strongly between state influence and individual freedom on different issues.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Your self-proclaimed stance of strong Government influence in economics and decreased regulation elsewhere is precisely the rhetoric of the American Left. While the Democrats actually support things like gun control and smoking bans. However, they claim to have exactly the positions that you claim to have.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : AS I said : my views are VERY diverse. I object to globalist capitalism, I object to multiculturalism, I object to any tax on labor, while I support the legalisation of most narcotics (I'm still undecided on cocaine, heroin and meth), I support a return to PRE-Christian traditional European values and I prefer a technocratic system over a democratic system or republic.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Why do I consider Crowder a neocon? I guess its because all of his onesided videos that I've seen very much reflect the perspective of the GOP and FOX with regards to political issues for as much as I can tell from my exposure to them as a European. Neoconservatism is pretty irrelevant out here, so I have to judge the ideology by analysing the GOP.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Esspecially considering recent events, it is obscene to label the GOP at large as Neoconservative. It certainly has a Neocon wing. However it ignores great thinkers such as Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, Rand Paul, Ronald Reagan, and that's just off the top of my head. It includes neocons, neoliberals, Libertarians, Classical Liberals, Paleoconservatives, and Conservatives. Mr. Crowder very well may be a neocon, but not based solely on this video.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : The Neocons dominate the GOP on a national level. I'm certain that at a local level many paleocons, libertarians and people of other ideologies are still actively supporting their community, but at a national level they have been made irrelevant. Look at how Ron Paul was shoved aside and ridiculed by the media during the last elections, even though he was probably the ONLY candidate to actually support the interests of the American people.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
You're wrong. You simply are wrong that neocons "dominate" the GOP on the National level. There are a lot. Don't get me wrong. However it is a mischaracterization to say they dominate it. If that's the case, explain the unanimous opposition to Socialized Healthcare. Further, yo can nt blame the actions of the media on the GOP. The treatment of Paul would have been laughable if it wasn't infuriating. But they shat on McCain too, the definition of a Neocon.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Americans don't like Socialized Healthcare because they're raised into believing that everything that reeks like socialism is baaaad. It's a cultural thing, really. Openly advocating Socialized Healthcare in the US is similar to openly acknowledging that Christianity is primitive superstition. It's just too sensitive and no politician can openly make such a claim without risking political suicide. It's amazing Obama got this far in spite of that. Of course he owes a lot to media spin!!
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
It's true that most Americans opposed to Socialized medicine oppose it because it is a buzzword. However, not all do. Not by a long shot. Many people have seen the atrocities that are the Canadian or British systems. Or they have seen the single worst example of Socialized medicine in the world, the VA/Military Health System. Anyone who has been in the military has seen that its Health System is everything that Socialized Medicine is accused of, and worse.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : I actually live in Belgium, a country with socialized medicine yet still enough freedom to choose your own MD, your own hospital, etc. It's one of the best health care systems in the world. In fact, Belgium is one of the most prosperous nations in the world (way more prosperous than the US) and the social safety net we have is thé most loved aspect of government in my country... one of the few aspects most people support actually.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
So if the US can't effectively run Socialized Medicine, why would the US be able to run Socialized Medicine?
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Where did I imply the US can't effectively run Socialized Medicine?
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Further, there is a tendency by the media to demonize the presidential candidate of whichever party is supposed to lose the election. When Bush had to win the election, they ridiculed Gore. When Obama had to win the election, they ridiculed McCain. This is the way the illusion of democracy is created. As the media manipulates public opinion, the masses believe they freely chose their president while they actually follow a script. The treatment of Paul was exceptional, though !
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Now again, you are commenting on the media situation in the US to someone who actually lives there, and you are not correct. The media has a tendency to ridicule whomever they are not going to vote for. 9 times out of 10 that is the Republican. With the exception of Fox News, who is the exact opposite. That's why Fox ridiculed Obama, and MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN all ridiculed McCain. The same for Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore, Clinton/Dole.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : As I said, the media has a tendency to ridicule whomever they do not want you to vote for. Sometimes that's a Republican, sometimes that's a Democrat. It doesn't really matter since both parties differ only in minor details and are both bought by the same corporate elite.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago 11
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
It's the difference between me stealing your food on one hand and not cooking for you on the other. Further, you are wrong about advertising having only one purpose. The fact is, advertising creates billions of dollars of wealth every year, and consequently providesthousands (if not more) jobs. I certainly don't veiw that as a bad thing.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : So advertising companies create unnecessary jobs and make money from other companies. Big deal ! While multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations spend enough money to feed hundreds of thousands of people on advertising to artificially strengthen their already very powerful position, they make every effort to save money on production and see no problem in transferring their entire production offshore to places where people work like slaves to produce inferior products for peanuts
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Is more people having jobs really a bad thing? Is that honestly what you're arguing here? Because I'm willing to bet the people who hold those jobs don't think they're "useless." Nor do the people who buy the product that ad companies produce. You are arguing something that raises the standard of living of millions of people is a bad thing. Good luck trying to sell that idea. This idea that you have that free trade is a result of advertising is ridiculous. (cont)
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : You're mixing up different things here. I just said that the advertising industry is an unnecessary industry that drains money from other industries, generates unfair competition and is plain annoying. If you care about the extra job it creates, an alternative would be to tax these corporations with the amount of money they're now spending on advertising and use it to create jobs to actually improve our living... like better and cheaper social services.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
We are 100% that MOST advertising is annoying. However, your statements suggest an ignorance of economics. An industry that creates wealth is not draining money from other industries. However, taxing in and of itself destroys wealth. That is precisely why it should not be done. However advertising brings individuals to the corporation. This benefits all stakeholders of the corporation. This improves their living, and the living on the people they give that money to.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : It's your statements that suggest an ignorance of economics. First of all, wealth is not created with consumtion. Wealth is just transferred from one person to the other and the larger corporations get the more money flows from the lower and middle classes to a tiny cabal or multi-billionaires who consistently drain the economy. They get richer and everyone else gets poorer.
Taxing does not destroy wealth. It just turns over wealth to the state, which it can then redistribute.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
I never said that wealth is created through consumption. Rather through production, which is then consumed. You are putting words in my mouth, and you're still wrong. When regulation is decreased wealth increases for the rich, but it also increases for the poor. Again, your invention of "facts" suggest an ignorance of economics which you will make up history to attempt to prove.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Wealth is not created through production either. The real wealth consists of the resources themselves. Anyway, when regulation is decreased it increases exploitation of the weak by the strong and as such this benefits only the rich. The attrocious conditions of 19th century Western-Europe are a perfect example of this, but I don't expect an American to understand the complexities of economics... You call me ignorant, yet you Americans are more ignorant than I deemed possible today.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
You are 100% wrong. "Wealth" is not money. Money is slips of paper or chuncks of metal. Wealth is the sum total of goods (both physical and not) and services that a country produces. Ahh yes. Americans are ignorant of Economics. That's why Hayek performed most of his work here. Also Milton Friedman, a real idiot. Also that US city Chicago. It doesn't have the SINGLE BEST economic school in the world. You spout nonsense and accuse people who prove you wrong of being ignorant.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : I never said that wealth is money. I'm just saying that wealth is never produced. Labor, services and resources are a form of wealth as well and different forms of wealth are just exchanged for other forms of wealth.
Maybe Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman are idiots. Maybe they're just elitists who desire the freedom to freely exploit others. I can't really say. I do know, however, that a so-called "free market" is a nightmare.
Who proved me wrong?
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Ohh. Also John Nash. Real Economic Illiterate. Do you realize how dumb you sound?
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Nash was a genius mathematician. That doesn't make him a great economist. The economy does follow mathematical principles but mathematics are oblivious to human nature and culture.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
.... It would apear you are really confused... I was reffering to Nash's Nobel Prize in economics as proof that he had a great Economic mind. While I understand that the Prize has very little value, being from Europe and all, still kind of a good gauge as to whether someone is good at a particular subject.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Nash won the Nobel Prize for his MATHEMATICAL work that just happened to have an effect on economic theory. I agree, though, that the Prize has little value.... IN SPITE OF it being from Europe ;-)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
He won the prize in economics. That's like saying the invention of the internet "just happened" to have an effect on Computer Science.... Again, it was the Economics Prize that he won....
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : He won the Economics Prize for a mathematical model. Do you even know what Nash got famous for?!
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Yes. I am well acquainted with his idea. It is very clear that you do not. You have repeatedly claimed that his Nobel Prize for Economics was utterly unrelated to economics. That's just plain stupid.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Further, taxation ABSOLUTELY destroys wealth. Again, you don't even have an elementary grasp of economics. Wealth is created when a good or service is produced. Money is nothing more than a certificate representing that wealth. People are given these certificates for creating wealth. Then the Government comes in and takes the money (not wealth) for not having produced anything. By paying itself for not having produced anything, it decreases the per dollar value of wealth.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Just because I don't but into the brainwashing you've fell for, that doesn't mean I don't understand economics. Anyway, wealth is never created but merely exchanged. When governments tax, wealth changes hands from private to collective ownership. This wealth, however, is redistributed to the public by means of social services, infrastructure, etc. Governments actually do something with the money they take from you, you know?!
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Wealth is ABSOLUTELY created. The fact that you do not understand this proves you have 0 understanding of economics. Which is worth more? A handful of sand, or a silicon microchip? Resources have value. When the resources are formed into a useful good, they have a higher value. That is how wealth is created. But the Government does not take WEALTH. They take money. Those are not the same thing. They take money for not having created a good or service. That destroys wealth.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : sand + fuel + labor = a microchip. A microchip is just a combination of different forms of wealth. Nothing is created, only combined.
The government TAKES money to create welfare. They create services with the money you give them. That's the whole point of government.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
See, herein lies the basic misunderstanding of economics. The microchip has a greater value than the three parts do individually. Attribute it to the plans, the R/D, whatever. It has a greater value. That is the creation of wealth. Further, even if you are correct, labor is created on a daily basis. And yes, I get what Government does. The point is no new good is created. Government takes money, devaling it, and gives it ou, devaluing it. Nothing is produced.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : Governments use taxes to provide services. These services create welfare. It's totally ignorant to claim that governments produce nothing at all.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
You clearly don't understand what money is. Money in and of itself has no value. Money is given to people in return for the good/servidce they produce. The Government is "paid" through taxes despite not having created a good or service. Because those slips of paper are not correlated to some good or service, they become just slips of paper. Then, in the Welfare State, the slips of paper are handed over to someone else who did not produce anything. It is devalued again.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : You clearly don't seem to understand that governments DO create a hell of a lof of services, some of which need a steady supply of goods. It does generate a lot of welfare that you somehow keep ignoring.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
You are mischarecterizing my argument. Welfare State programs (not all programs for example the military is not a Welfare state program) assign slips of paper to individuals who did not create anything. They are paid for not producing a good or service. Ergo, those dollars are meaningless. How is it you think that paper money not tied to wealth are worth anything other then the paper they're printed on?
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : So none of the money you pay to the government goes to health care workers or educators? You don't have a clue, do you?!
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Firstly, Healthcare workers are not, in the United States, Government employees. Therefore that point is moot. Secondly, public education is not a part of the welfare state. Thirdly, again, educators are not Federal employees. So despite the fact that you are wrong about everything you attempted to posit here, you still accuse others of not having a clue?
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : You're hopeless.....
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
Haha. I'm hopeless because I won't be persuaded by your inaccurate information? Here in the States the word for that is reasonable, not hopeless. You have proven you have no comprehension of basic economics, of civics, of history, or of common sense. For example, you claim that greed is not innate in humans, while you're clearly greedy!! You demand the fruits of others' labor. Nothing could be more greedy.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf : You pay money to government --> government pays money to third parties --> third parties provide services like education and health care. That's how taxes provide services and if you don't get that you're a moron.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
The fact that you have REPEATEDLY refused to answer my charge, I will assume that you recognize that I am right and you are wrong. I have said repeatedly that it is Welfare State programs that do not produce wealth. Social Security insurance does not create wealth. Welfare does not create wealth. Further, if I pay the third party directly, that creates wealth. The middle man step of the Government is still a transaction that devalues the dollar and destroys wealth.
sgtkpf 1 year ago