So if you guys are all good liberals, Do you think obama a good liberal? I think both parties and philosophies are trash. This channel and the howstuffworks is all bigorty. Obama is a schmuck PERIOD.
@Reido2828 Obama is not a good liberal. He is average. There isn't anyone better though, in my opinion, at the moment either if you look at those right wing nutjob debates.
You can demand reform. This is why Americans shouldn't vote for their government, you're so bad at it. 8 years of bush then 8 years of Obama is going to be a horrific disaster. You people chase after a lie before the truth. Obama is not average, what a fool you are. Hes very far right and reading his memo's clearly tells. When will you also figure out both parties have been bought out along time ago? Hate Ron Paul for his radical ideas but respect him for his truth.
@Reido2828 yeah well I am not an american so that resposibility isn't mine. I agree with you about Ron Paul though I have no problem with libertarians. It is just all the clips from the debates I see he doesn't say much. I know he probably does but that is just the bias of the news. I did like the golden rule about foreign policy. Though north korea has openly said that once americans leave they will take the south back so that worries me abit.
i like your video's and i dont think lee has much credibility, but a funny part of this video is when you're quoting lee for calling you a liar and at the end of that quote lee says "you cut quotes" and you cut that part of his quote out :p
On the abortion issue, I have to side with Lee. Why would this person argue that forced abortions are constitutional under certain circumstances if that person does not support them? There are many things in the constitution that are allowed, but I don't think are a good idea...but I certainly don't go out of my way to stretch the meaning of the Constitution to prove something I don't even want anyway.
If a person is banging on my door wielding a machete yelling that he's going to kill me and my entire family, my liberty would be sufficiently threatened to the point that it could be considered constitutional for me to shoot this person.
Saying this however, does not mean I support shooting people under normal circumstances. Do you understand the distinction?
Ok, either you didn't pay attention to what the guy actually said, or you are incapable of understanding analogies.
He was saying that under extreme circumstances that forced abortions could be considered consitutional; in the same way that killing another person could be considered consitutional as outlined in my analogy. If you want to disagree on the point that overpopulation poses a threat to the general welfare,ok. To make the assumption that you made is a fallacy.
@JJarv213 I guess I didn't go to the video that was referenced in the video that was referenced in this video. To tell you the truth, I've lost interest.
He cannot accept that the inerpretation he alraedy holds could be extreme or wrong, so he he calls you a liar. He does not want to look honestly at what he does.
@WeEatBrainz ... you've made grammar mistakes on youtube too. it is pointless to poke fun at someone else's grammer (even if he is the villain in this tale) when you're own grammer is not without mistakes.
Liberal viewer, I respect that you are and blunt and intelligent when making commentaries about political issues. The question I have for you, in the hopes that you can speak for a majority of liberals who are less articulate, is whether you have a greater respect for the text of the Constitution or the spirit behind the document. My view, and the view of many conservatives, is that the Constitution means nothing if it is not followed to the letter, without arbitrary interpretation.
Thomas Jefferson: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times."
@gamerunknown DUI isn't a federal offence. The laws of the states and individual municipalities change with the circumstances of the era, but not the laws and responsibilities of the federal government. The subjective interpretation of the constitution and it's purpose is why horrible overreaches of authority, like the bank bailouts, have happened.
Do you believe the constitution is still relevant, or that we should scrap it because it's old?
I think it's important to refer to the Constitution and how its precepts were enforced by the founding fathers. In this instance, foreign aid was deemed constitutional by Congress while a founding father sat in it. The FF ceded that there were events they couldn't perceive (drugs - federal offence) in the future and that the Constitution couldn't be the sole reference for the laws of the country - the general welfare of the country had to be considered.
@gamerunknown By the authority of the Constitution the government is given certain responsibilities and authority to carry out those responsibilities. Do you agree with that statement?
If that statement is true then the government has only the authorities listed specifically in the constitution, and any breach of its bounds renders the government tyrannical, for taking power which it was not given.
Stretching the "meaning behind" the commerce clause doesn't change the real text.
This is inexplicable: I wasn't referring to the "commerce clause": I was referring to the general welfare clause; unless they've become inflated in the American consensus. At any rate, I don't believe the legitimate powers of the state merely extend to extinguishing the life of citizens, I believe they extend to prolonging them, by establishing universal healthcare in accordance to the provisions of the Harvard Medical School.
@gamerunknown I wasn't saying you specifically were, just that the less than specific wording there has lead to some of the worst overreaches in government history.
The general welfare does not mean establishing a state health insurance agency, it means doing what is necessary to ensure the continuance of the nation as a whole. It has no regard to individuals. It is not technically applicable to law. The preamble states the purpose of the constitution, not the powers of the government.
If a government does not serve its people, then who does it serve? Should the Constitution take precedence over the American people? There is historical reason to believe that the necessary and proper clause applies to the justification for the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8, due to the way the founding fathers interpreted it. If Congress were limited to warfare and policing, the government would only intervene to end lives, not save them.
@gamerunknown The federal government's place is outlined very clearly in the constitution, no where in that outline is there any mention of taking care of the physical needs of the individual citizen, that is a responsibility and authority reserved exclusively for the states. We have this system of a federal government over several state governments for a reason, because when the model is followed correctly the nation as a whole prospers. I blame income taxes for our general decline.
The federal government has the power to tax. To claim that income tax is the reason for decline is preposterous: GDP grew in Eisenhower's administration with a 94% income tax for the highest earners. Scandinavian countries have a far higher tax rate and far higher quality of life indicators too - "the nation" is more accurately the very wealthy - "By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you... So you say stuff like... states' rights..." - Lee Atwater.
@gamerunknown Icome taxes weren't introduced in America until the sixteenth amendment, which was never legitimately ratified, and at the time the opposition to the amendment wanted to have it constitutionally capped at 2% for the highest earners, while those who supported it swore that income taxes would never get that high.
People have been arguing states rights since before the constitution was signed, so your quote is irrelevant.
The people that were arguing in favour of state's rights successfully managed to retain slavery in a few states as the founding fathers ceded that it was not a federal issue. Far more important to maintain post offices than liberty and the pursuit of happiness: independence with dependants. Besides, the alternatives to income tax would be property tax and head tax and those would disproportionately affect the poor.
@gamerunknown Wrong, the alternative to income tax would be the federal government having less money. The government does not need trillions and trillions of dollars to run when all it is doing is the things it is given the authority to do in the constitution. Our debt to GDP ratio is at 100%, every other country that has ever had such a high ratio has failed. Unnecessary spending on a federal level is unconstitutional and does not promote the general welfare of the country.
Well, our definitions of unnecessary are different. Every other industrial country has a system of public healthcare and higher quality of life outcomes (aka. the general welfare that the government ought to protect). The direct taxes were alluded to in the Constitution. According to wikipedia, the 16th amendment was ratified by Congress and the requisite states, I fail to see how it is unconstitutional? Anarchy is preferable to a police+post state.
@gamerunknown If there is to be a form of state insurance it would have to be provided by the individual states, not the federal government. The general welfare that the government is obligated to protect is the general welfare of the nation, not the individual people. It is also unconstitutional to have a standing federal military, instead we should have state militias under a federal leadership.
The manner in which the sixteenth amendment was ratified was not legitimate.
What specifically about the sixteenth amendment was not legitimate? I'm not advocate of US military expenditure, but as far as I'm aware the limitation on standing armies has been that their orders have to be renewed at least every 2 years: there has been a standing army since 1784. If the federal government serves to protect states that fail to serve individuals, then IMO its power is illegitimate. The monarchists also said "for the good, not the people".
@gamerunknown It comes down to the wording, and that Ohio wasn't a state, yet helped vote in favor of the amendment.
The federal government has no responsibility to individual citizens. That is a responsibility of the states, the entire purpose we of the tiered system of government we have is where responsibility lays. The Federal government is responsible for the nation as a whole and the states collectively. The states are responsible for themselves and their people.
Ohio's lack of qualification for statehood was a technical fault that was corrected in 1953. Unless you think every amendment Ohio approved of between 1804 and 1953 should be rejected? The rate at which the Constitution has been amended is just over one amendment every ten years, with the majority of changes occurring within the first century of the first amendment. There is a case that the ability of Congress to collect taxes is hampered when citizens die.
Also, the framers of the Constitution (writing in the Declaration of Independence) held that "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government": the ends referred to are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Government serves to endorse corporations contributing to 616k CHD deaths a year rather than save 45k lives through healthcare...
Forgot to mention, more states than the minimum necessary endorsed the 16th amendment, so Ohio is irrelevant unless one focuses on the technical detail that has been corrected since.
@gamerunknown How is the government being destructive to those ends in any way shape or form? There is a difference between not giving people free health insurance and not giving people healthcare. It is illegal for a hospital to refuse to treat you if you are sick. This insurance won't save lives, it'll save bank accounts, and that is not the government's responsibility. If the states want to do it they have that right, but the Federal government does not.
The US is the only country where one can be ruined financially due to receiving treatment. Some individuals that simply can't afford insurance die as a result according to that study - presumably they have to make decisions based on providing food for their children or having healthcare. No epidemiological report states that the welfare of the country is better off as a result.
@gamerunknown None of that provides a reason for the government to get involved. How people chose to use their money is none of the governments business. The individual choices made by some people don't influence laws, there is no reason for a person to die because they don't have insurance so there is no reason for the government to provide it. Even if that wasn't the case there would still be no reason for the federal government to provide insurance. It will always be a state issue.
Of course individual decisions to purchase influence laws. Corporate free speech controls elections, for one. Though the voice of the people is meant to be represented in Congress. The other issue is that the purchasing of firearms, drugs or child pornography have federal departments that regulate these things. If a person cannot afford both travel expenses and insurance or food and insurance or a home and insurance then that's ample reason to provide it.
@gamerunknown And yes, when it's an issue of law ALL technical issues must be addressed. Also, the wording of the amendment and the wording put before congress are different. Another technical issue that makes the amendment null.
Again, the technical issue was fixed retrospectively. While that may not seem appealing pragmatically, it is a rock solid legal defence of the sixteenth amendment. The amendment was discussed and revised in the Senate, it's not the first time. Even the first amendment underwent several revisions before its final version. If all amendments which Ohio ratified before 1953 were rescinded, that'd include the 14th amendment and precedents set by cases.
Not to mention that providing for "the general welfare" is allowable outside of the specific enumerated powers... the opposite is true. ANY positive effect on the "general welfare" of the union must be exercised solely through the innumerated powers. To claim that the government can assume any power it chooses, as long as they believe it benefits the union to do so diminishes the Constitution to a worthless rag which says "government may do anything it things is right".
@RyderSpearmann I have no idea if "Liberal Viewer" ever studied the constitution but I have read it once or twice. I fail to see anything in the document that states that general welfare is not for the people. Unless it's just for the Country itself such as roads bridges ect. I again state freely that I have no background in the constitution but I really don't see where it says this.
@darkwarriorkane Article 1, Section 8 says: "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”. It does not say "the people". It says the United States... which is an entirely different concept. Not individual states. Not individual persons. Only that which is for the general welfare of the states in unity.
If it was for the general welfare of the people, it would have said "the general welfare of the people."
All you have to do is read it. It's right in front of you.
@darkwarriorkane "They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson
See that? The welfare of the *union*. The structure of combined states. Not persons.
It would also exclude persons of foreign citizenship like Hatians.
The union-states were redundant as the object of this "general welfare."
Likewise, states seceded only when others begin taxing them for their own special interest, as well as gerrymandering for such via unconstitutional laws, and then began plotting to overthrow the Supreme Court when it ruled them such.
So general welfare isn't just whatever a Congressional majority says, it has real meaning.
@darkwarriorkane Let's hear from Alexander Hamilton, where he makes very clear that GENERAL welfare is the only Constitutional use of taxes: "The constitutional test of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose of *general* or *local* nature. If the former, there can be no want of constitutional power.. Whatever relates to the general order of the finances, to the general interests of trade etc., being general objects are constitutional ones for the application of money.''
@RyderSpearmann And now Washington "with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance,''. Here is George himself clearly delineating between the welfare of a person, and the Nation.
I'd assume that studying the Constitution would be a requirement of becoming a lawyer. Knowing historical precedent would be an indicator of a good lawyer. Can you provide an instance where Congress refused to apportion aid or welfare because they determined it was unconstitutional?
@gamerunknown I'm fairly certain that lawyers are the greatest threat to the Constitution... as they can and will argue anything to win a case... and you will find lawyers on BOTH sides of all constitutional issues... including slavery.
Courts and elections were never intended to be the supreme arbiters of law, but rather the PEOPLE were always the supreme sovereigns; but the lawyers usurped this during the Jackson and Lincoln administrations, and now they've got the tail wagging the dog under an elite oligarchy of lawyers, with Lincoln, the grand-daddy of all shysters, as their patron-saint.
"welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
"Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution."
By this definition, the general welfare clause certainly doesn't apply to everything, but it certainly applies to health care.
@scottandrewhutchins You have to look at a dictionary from the late 18th century and you have to look at the federal papers and the notes from the constitutional convention. Public healthcare wasn't part of the plan.
@thepolice911copeland No he doesn't. Obama, though claiming to be a progressive is anything but. He might be at heart, but on almost every opportunity he has caved to the republicans. He may be president, but for the most part, the republicans are running the show.
@Swidhelm Hmm pay attention for a second okay? Social programs are the heart of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY less government and free market capatalism is the REP"UBLICAN PARTY...So nooo he has not caved into the republican party because for most of his term there was a democratic supermajority in the house and in congress and because you obviously have no idea what im talking about because you have done absolutely no research and you probably get your news from jon stewart and family guy let me explain
@Swidhelm So a supermajority is where 2/3rds are more people in the house or senate are democratic so this means that for most of Obamas term Republicans could veto or challenge any of his bills or stimulus package plans...So how when he was following a completely liberal and democratic agenda has he let republicans run the show? The answer is he hasnt, most republicans are simply astonished at the lack of accomplishments he has had and how stupid he can be. So yeah nooo
@thepolice911copeland The health reform ended up being completely botched because of concessions made to the republicans, and he's done very little else because when he tries the republicans vote it down, regardless of what it is. Obama has no spine, that's his biggest problem. When they were making cuts like crazy, cuts that Obama promised not to make, he made them and then some to appease the republicans.
@Swidhelm What? This makes no sense he got almost everything he wanted passed because republicans couldnt vote it down. Yes he has no spine but republicans had nothing to do with it, promises to corporations, unions and ngo s did.
@thepolice911copeland Dems have got almost nothing they wanted. Which is why those who voted for Obama are so fed up with him. He claims to be progressive, but acts very right wing. He has caved time and again to republicans. Hell he's Boehner's bitch.
I didn't even know who Lee Doren was when I got into a discussion with him on one of his comment threads. I thought it was pretty civil, with the exception that he seems to start every paragraph with some belittling remark.
A few weeks later I tried to put a comment on one of his videos and found I had been blocked. What a squirrel.
James Madison doesn't mention the internet! Youtube is not condoned under the Constitution and is purely a state matter. My country is not within the 13 States so I guess I'll have to uninstall it.
If Doren had the reactions you said he did, than that certainly belies a stubborn ego. However, I think it would be disingenuous to call everything he says into question because he has made mistakes in his assertions. (I do agree with you that people need to do their own independent study either way.) I'm sure you have made more than one mistake in your posts as well. After all, we all have character flaws.
Jebus Fucking Christ, Liberal cats don't understand their opposition, so they immediately start puking out the term "right wing." Good sir StunnedByStupidity (nice Hungarian notation bro) even calls his a sociopath for completely superficial reason. This is why the Tea Party got a third of all their candidates elected nation wide: You guys refuse to even understand the other side. Political discourse, your doing it wrong.
@Chrisrayholly Oh and before you peeps start crying foul over semantics, constantly likening someone to right wing sources, or dismissing them and said sources as if they were in cahoots is the same as calling said person "right wing." Libertarians and right wingers are not the same thing just as capitalism and corporatism are not the same. Please start learning the differences here.
I honestly think Lee is a psychopath - his ease of lying, his narcissism, his false superiority, his inability to learn from mistakes, superficial charm, his selfishness (held as a virtue), his contempt for those lower on the socio-economic ladder, absolutely NO conscience or embarrassment - and those VERY disturbing dead eyes - BTW there are many on the right that, I think, share this characteristic...
US politics is a form of belief tied to religion and is an act of will, not reason; an act of power, not agreement; an act of oppression, not contrition; and an act of fascism, not democracy: and herein lies the irony of the religious, that veil themselves with the compassion of another, whose Compassion is not their own, for theirs is the ugly state of nature where the strong rip the flesh from the weak for the lust of their own hunger, which gives credence to evolution, but not a loving God.
Lee blocked me for leaving a dissident (but respectful) comment. Let's face it, lee is a punk ass, think skinned piece of shit who can't take anyone disagreeing with him. It's hard for me to take someone seriously who has as punchable a face as Lee Doren. He is an enormous piece of trash who isn't worth the attention of a respectable person like Allen Asch. But at the same time, I do love the pwnage. So keep slamming this little bitch ass corporate cocksucker.
Liberal is not what liberals are. There is nothing liberating about being a liberal If you are calling for greater control of our lives by the government, that's the opposite of liberation. The modern day liberal has nothing in common with the Jeffersonian concept of liberal and liberty. So if we have people who call themselves liberals, who are subscribing to an ideology that is the opposite of the spirit of our founding documents, then they are on the wrong, and yes, bad side of things.
@AroundSun The word 'liberal' has been skewed in US latest 30 years or so to mean social liberalism. Back at Jeffersons time, the liberalists opposed the power of the king, the noblemen, and the church. Those institutions lost their political power in the 19 century and the capitalist industrialists gained it. Almost all parties in western countries are liberal by 18 century standard. We are only fighting about what flavor of liberalism we want.
@AngeCord Nice revisionist history! Sorry to dissapoint you, but liberty means of and pertaining to liberty. Limited government in your lives. A voluntary society free from force and coercion. Mutual consent and voluntary exchange. You can't want the government to tell everyone what to do, and call yourself a liberal sorry. Doesn't work that way. Libertarianism is classical liberalism, which are LIBERALS. Collectivists and progressives hijacked the word, we should take it back.
@AngeCord Nice revisionist history! Sorry to dissapoint you, but liberty means of and pertaining to liberty. Limited government in your lives. A voluntary society free from force and coercion. Mutual consent and voluntary exchange. You can't want the government to tell everyone what to do, and call yourself a liberal sorry. Doesn't work that way. Libertarianism is classical liberalism, which are LIBERALS. Collectivists and progressives hijacked the word, we should take it back.
What you've done is understand the basic exchange of factual reality or policy understanding that plays out when you rationally discuss things with far right wingers or Tea Party people. In all my encounters here, I find the same facts to be true. They argue from a position of personal insults, outright lying, trying to change the subject, & skulking away to post the same lies above. It's not thoughtful rational political discussion, it's spam.
you claim you have "expertise" in constitutional law. seeing as how most "experts" would have a doctorate, or related degree, i would like you to show me a photographed copy of your degree in constitutional law with my username sticky noted to it.
if you dont comply, you are a lying, misinforming prick who nit-picks every word someone whom you dont agree with says.
LiberalViewer is the one who "misleads". Just because someone doesn't address every little nuance or rabbit trail a liberal might want to take things, doesn't mean the overall points are not accurate. Liberals have always used a little truth to lie, and I see it every day. I'm an expert in how people lie from 20 years of dealing with anti-mormons in how they do the same with my religion. Every issue the whole truth tells a very different story than the anti-mormon or liberal will tell you.
I've been calling your ass out for months on your comment page with no avail. and now you decide to respond. Which proves the point I made earlier. you cherry pick.
Why don't you just change your channel name to "debunking Fox news" (Nothing wrong with that we all do it) because it seems every time I reccomend a video for you to try to debunk you fail.
also you never gave an honest response on how you took his "stalin" quote out of context.
I gets 100+ comments every day so you'll forgive me if I don't remember all your comments over a period of months. I answered you last comment because you said something factually wrong ("Lee already debunked this video") that I could easily correct by referencing many pages I already prepared at liberalviewer(.)com/htww
(the 1st link there leads to a page discussing out-of-context Stalin accusation)
Again, I hope that clears up your misunderstanding and
On the issue of your name. Why not add to your note on your channel and say "I am not a member of the Democrat or Republican party, I am a member of the Independent party. I hope this clears up any confusion that people have about my name" Your original note was good but I believe you should add what I wrote to the original one.
@LiberalViewer Anything you say is basically debunked by third grade logic, because you aren't even a liberal to begin with. Liberals can't do anything without conservatives by design. You couldn't win an argument if your life depended on it. You are only liberal with other peoples money
@N33DL3R Awwww. Are you a liberal too? Do you stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalalala I dont care about facts!! Yes, I believe you do, or you wouldn't be a well intentioned leftist with bad policy results
@AroundSun Stfu you marxist, why don't you worship your hero, stalin, privately.I miss the days when cops beat you filthy commie hippies half to death.
@AroundSun Maybe he called you a troll becuase you just say shit without proof, then insult like a anger child, then never provide proof of why his points can be "debunked by third grade logic." Btw, I'm not a liberal :D
@lovesXtoXspoog "Maybe he called you a troll becuase you just say shit without proof"
No, everything I say is backed up.
First, we can start by looking at modern liberals. There is nothing liberating about being a liberal. If you want greater control over our lives by the government, that is the opposite of liberation. Modern liberals have nothing in common with the Jeffersonian concept of liberal and liberty.
Furthermore, the constitution is enough proof, why don't you read it sometime
"We all do it"? Your three videos are wrestling videos. LiberalViewer has uploaded over 100 videos demonstrating Fox News bias. You've maligned his commendable efforts (and your own argument) with your faint praise.
That wasn't your point. You were decrying him for attacking Fox News almost as if there were no rational adults under the misapprehension that Fox News was a "fair and balanced" news organisation: saying that "we all do it". You've shifted the goalposts to the two wrongs fallacy (MSNBC does it, so it's wrong to criticse Fox for doing it) and equivocating (Fox may distort the facts consistently, but MSNBC did it too). "Liberal" is just a declared bias. You can make MSNBC vids.
here's some REAL free market and libertarian ideal that you would look foolish debunking
Reason TV
Econ Stories. - Fear the Boom and the Bust rap battle or Fight of the Cenury
Peter Schiff show - Peter Schiff was right 2.0, or Debunking Warren Buffets Tax Myth or his Debate with Cenk Uygur of TYT (he made Cenk look like a school girl.)
I've been sending you suggestions for months. Please stop cherry picking and challenge yourself any one can debunk Fox News its not hard.
@Salvysahagun Don't take it personally, people that have agendas never listen to rational arguments. They nitpick and find flaws in others so they don't have to examine their own beliefs. HTWW and LV are both sharp guys but sometimes I think that they BOTH let their prejudices inhibit them from finding any common ground. Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what HTWW says but again, I think that LV makes some valid points. Who knows, maybe they do have common ground we don't know about...
@Salvysahagun wrote: "LV has completly ignored my valid points and only digs deep into find one invalid point."
If you've made any "valid points," I missed them. Mainly, I saw you complaining that I did not make videos on the topics of your choosing but the remedy for that complaint is to make your own videos because, then, you get to choose the topic.
I'm glad to see, however, that you have at least admitted that your original defense of Lee Doren was an "invalid point."
The american conservative values, are all about protecting the interests of the bourgeousie and upholding imperialist invasions and domination for resources, thoroughly exploiting the third world while using scapegoats as a means of denying the factualities that arise from the consequences of it.
Just spark a friggin' revolution, nationalize the economy (under dem. workers' control), and expose 'n burn these motherfuckers. People over the planet have shed enough blood for this upper class orgy.
HTWW blocked me from commenting on his videos for merely criticizing one of his videos. I didn't say anything offensive but merely explained why I thought he was wrong. I thought he was all about American values such as freedom of speech? I guess not. Not when it is to his disadvantage.
And you know WHY Lee doesn't respond? Well first of all, he is inept, second, he's wrong, third, he won't admit he is wrong and fourth, the majority of people that watch his videos... oppose him so it would take most of his life to respond to negative remarks (I actually feel privileged as he actually had the time to delete my posts[which were worded as a friendly debate, not abusive at all] which isn't much of a privilege I admit), and with as many subscribers as he has, that is a fair effort.
Does LiberalViewer put biased questions at the end of every video because he can't see how wrong he is? or Does LiberalViewer understand how wrong he is and decide to ignore his bias anyway?
@capstar7075 "Does LiberalViewer put biased questions at the end of every video because he can't see how wrong he is? or Does LiberalViewer understand how wrong he is and decide to ignore his bias anyway?" Do you understand how stupid both your questions are?
I am a supporter of many of Lee's videos but I think his own popularity has fed into his ego and he's started making distortions himself and not conceding to his mistakes. I'm a conservative, so obviously I agree with him often, but as of late I've been taking what he says with more skepticism. So in short: Sometimes he is very factual, and that's when I like him. Other times, especially lately, he's become a bit too proud and distorted. That's a conservative perspective for ya.
I was watching his series of videos entitled "LiberalViewer Deliberately Distorts the Facts," and he makes logic leaps and correlations that just don't make sense. To his credit, he does show MSNBC bias in Distorts the Facts part 3. However, I have yet to watch your video to which he was referring, so I can't really say if he was being fair to you or not.
He is prolly not unable to understand... just unwilling to admit he is wrong because of danger of losing face... Admitting he is wrong will lose him viewers while the stupid ones will agree in his ad hominum attacks on you and live on in blissfull ignorance
In answer to the first question: No he doesn't realize he's full of garbage.
In answer to the second question: He tells upper class white males exactly what they want to hear. Defending their illegitimate wealth and privileged. He's just (as Malcolm X says) a house Negro.
You can never enlighten the ignorant to the fact that they are ignorant until they accept that and become enlightened. Next is the fact you ask if he is trying to be intentional or not? I could say yes and no at the same time but in the end what does it matter? OH one more thing I know this is nerdy to say but this answers your why would they believe him question Wizards First Rule. Goggle that for your answer :-D
Lee Doren is Venomfang X with a law degree. He is desperately trying to get a show on Faux "News" and in order to get that job, he must hone his lying skills.
Sometimes I wonder why people argue so much about precise numbers and made up rules. Things are messed up and need to be changed. Everyone can start small and rethink his consume behavior. And it is not much about reduction and/or abstinence, but more about rethinking the sources and selecting between them, as far as there are options.
You can nit pick anyone's videos for little problems within each of their sentences. This is youtube, and vocal discussion can be flawed. The fact of the matter is, Lee has posted numerous intelligent, well studied and factually accurate videos and you, Liberalviewer have a vendetta against him because he is winning people over to conservatism. Dont pretend that you dont despise his beliefs because you do and you are incapable of discrediting Lee.
@TheEtceteraEtcetera you're an idiot. Just because Im a conservative or libertarian, doesnt mean I watch FOX News. I dont even live in America, so I cant watch it even if I wanted to. Obviously they've been discredited LONG AGO, and their decline in ratings shows that. Faux is a sham and us libertarians are ALSO aware of that, dont pretend that we arent. As for Lee doren, Liberalviewer has barely touched upon Lee's library of videos, he's selectivly picking ones where Lee messes up a little.
@MyDormantSoul Of course he's selectively picking videos, he's offering a rebuttal to a direct criticism. That's the great thing about LiberalViewer, he doesn't mindlessly attack those he doesn't agree with, he takes direct misappropriation of fact and counters it.
I'm not denying Lee's abilitly to make an intelligible conversation, In this SPECIFIC circumstance I'm pointing out the fault in your outlandish claims of 'vendetta', a common claim made by the right when they have no real argument
@TheEtceteraEtcetera selectively picking off videos doesnt warrant a complete dismissal of credibility, something too many people have just done as a result of this video, you dont see any problem with that? Lee doesnt "mindlessly attack," he picks a subject of criticism and proceeds to go into a detailed dialogue on it, he's no more accurate than an MSNBC pundit, both give their respective opinions and both are open to critique, Lee is only under fire because he's rightwing, thats a vendetta
They don't attack Lee for being rightwing. They attack Lee because he distorts the facts, and he misleads his viewers. Lots of people expose Lee for his dishonesty, and he responds by blocking people because they disagree with his opinion. Lee even attacked one of his subscribers when she wanted him to reveal his subcriber list to disprove the sock account myth. Lee then called her a fool. Why would Lee attack one of his fellow subscibers? That's why people hate Lee Doren.
@patsrule213 TheYoungTurks blocked me from commenting on their videos and removed me from their subscriber list and they have a history of that being done too. U dont see the liberalviewer attacking his fellow liberals, and he never will because it doesnt serve his political agenda like attacking a popular right winger does. And like I said before, you say he distorts facts, I say he makes mistakes. Do you listen to his videos regularily? He has GREATLY improved since these EARLY examples of him
From what I've seen, liberalviewer is not a true left-winger. He acts more like an independent. He even says on his channel to check the definition of liberal, and it means that he is open minded. I believe that Liberalviewer's agenda is to tell the truth, and when I watch Lee's video's, it seems like he wants everyone to vote Republican. Lee thinks that the Democrats have cause all of our problems, but both parties are bought off by "a higher power". It's both parties fault.
So if you guys are all good liberals, Do you think obama a good liberal? I think both parties and philosophies are trash. This channel and the howstuffworks is all bigorty. Obama is a schmuck PERIOD.
Reido2828 6 days ago
@Reido2828 Obama is not a good liberal. He is average. There isn't anyone better though, in my opinion, at the moment either if you look at those right wing nutjob debates.
ItIsBadForU 3 days ago
@ItIsBadForU
You can demand reform. This is why Americans shouldn't vote for their government, you're so bad at it. 8 years of bush then 8 years of Obama is going to be a horrific disaster. You people chase after a lie before the truth. Obama is not average, what a fool you are. Hes very far right and reading his memo's clearly tells. When will you also figure out both parties have been bought out along time ago? Hate Ron Paul for his radical ideas but respect him for his truth.
Reido2828 2 days ago
@Reido2828 yeah well I am not an american so that resposibility isn't mine. I agree with you about Ron Paul though I have no problem with libertarians. It is just all the clips from the debates I see he doesn't say much. I know he probably does but that is just the bias of the news. I did like the golden rule about foreign policy. Though north korea has openly said that once americans leave they will take the south back so that worries me abit.
ItIsBadForU 2 days ago
howtheworldworks just sucks, end, of, story..
Maper555 1 week ago 3
"You have been blocked by the owner of this video." HOWTHEWORLDWORKS AKA LEE DOREN IS ANTI FREE SPEECH AND ANTI DISCUSSION.
lee0122333 1 week ago 2
Liberal fucking fags.
CoolCidd1981 1 week ago
@CoolCidd1981 Actually, I only bum right wing psychopaths.
morrjame8 1 week ago
Why does Lee Doren always look like he is spouting text from his screen?
Just look at 3:40
What do you guys think?
ec123456789able 1 week ago
youtubers bitching about each other. I'm glad i have a fucking life
BorgKing001 2 weeks ago
@BorgKing001
You're on one of their videos commenting about it.. not much of a life, eh? lul
CRUSH3Rdlux 1 week ago 2
Lee Doren is a prick.
ILOVEHASSELHOFF 2 weeks ago
i like your video's and i dont think lee has much credibility, but a funny part of this video is when you're quoting lee for calling you a liar and at the end of that quote lee says "you cut quotes" and you cut that part of his quote out :p
Rengog15 2 weeks ago
Mr Lee also has a problem with spelling. Somehow "America" was misspelled as "The World".
elfwall 2 weeks ago
On the abortion issue, I have to side with Lee. Why would this person argue that forced abortions are constitutional under certain circumstances if that person does not support them? There are many things in the constitution that are allowed, but I don't think are a good idea...but I certainly don't go out of my way to stretch the meaning of the Constitution to prove something I don't even want anyway.
thewag777 3 weeks ago 2
@thewag777 It's called an academic question. Intellectual/intelligent people do that from time to time.
MrRationalgaze 3 weeks ago
@thewag777
If a person is banging on my door wielding a machete yelling that he's going to kill me and my entire family, my liberty would be sufficiently threatened to the point that it could be considered constitutional for me to shoot this person.
Saying this however, does not mean I support shooting people under normal circumstances. Do you understand the distinction?
JJarv213 2 weeks ago
@JJarv213 Ok...not seeing what that has to do with forced abortions. You don't force someone to have an abortion in self defense.
Sorry, you lost me.
thewag777 2 weeks ago
@thewag777
Ok, either you didn't pay attention to what the guy actually said, or you are incapable of understanding analogies.
He was saying that under extreme circumstances that forced abortions could be considered consitutional; in the same way that killing another person could be considered consitutional as outlined in my analogy. If you want to disagree on the point that overpopulation poses a threat to the general welfare,ok. To make the assumption that you made is a fallacy.
JJarv213 2 weeks ago
@JJarv213 I guess I didn't go to the video that was referenced in the video that was referenced in this video. To tell you the truth, I've lost interest.
thewag777 2 weeks ago
His urls look wierd enough not to try them.
Acclamatar 4 weeks ago
He cannot accept that the inerpretation he alraedy holds could be extreme or wrong, so he he calls you a liar. He does not want to look honestly at what he does.
dorianleakey 4 weeks ago
Nice grammar howtheworldworks.
WeEatBrainz 1 month ago
@WeEatBrainz ... you've made grammar mistakes on youtube too. it is pointless to poke fun at someone else's grammer (even if he is the villain in this tale) when you're own grammer is not without mistakes.
babblesandbubbles 1 month ago
Liberal viewer, I respect that you are and blunt and intelligent when making commentaries about political issues. The question I have for you, in the hopes that you can speak for a majority of liberals who are less articulate, is whether you have a greater respect for the text of the Constitution or the spirit behind the document. My view, and the view of many conservatives, is that the Constitution means nothing if it is not followed to the letter, without arbitrary interpretation.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
Thomas Jefferson: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times."
Can we consult the founding fathers on DUI law?
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown DUI isn't a federal offence. The laws of the states and individual municipalities change with the circumstances of the era, but not the laws and responsibilities of the federal government. The subjective interpretation of the constitution and it's purpose is why horrible overreaches of authority, like the bank bailouts, have happened.
Do you believe the constitution is still relevant, or that we should scrap it because it's old?
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
I think it's important to refer to the Constitution and how its precepts were enforced by the founding fathers. In this instance, foreign aid was deemed constitutional by Congress while a founding father sat in it. The FF ceded that there were events they couldn't perceive (drugs - federal offence) in the future and that the Constitution couldn't be the sole reference for the laws of the country - the general welfare of the country had to be considered.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown By the authority of the Constitution the government is given certain responsibilities and authority to carry out those responsibilities. Do you agree with that statement?
If that statement is true then the government has only the authorities listed specifically in the constitution, and any breach of its bounds renders the government tyrannical, for taking power which it was not given.
Stretching the "meaning behind" the commerce clause doesn't change the real text.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
This is inexplicable: I wasn't referring to the "commerce clause": I was referring to the general welfare clause; unless they've become inflated in the American consensus. At any rate, I don't believe the legitimate powers of the state merely extend to extinguishing the life of citizens, I believe they extend to prolonging them, by establishing universal healthcare in accordance to the provisions of the Harvard Medical School.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown I wasn't saying you specifically were, just that the less than specific wording there has lead to some of the worst overreaches in government history.
The general welfare does not mean establishing a state health insurance agency, it means doing what is necessary to ensure the continuance of the nation as a whole. It has no regard to individuals. It is not technically applicable to law. The preamble states the purpose of the constitution, not the powers of the government.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
If a government does not serve its people, then who does it serve? Should the Constitution take precedence over the American people? There is historical reason to believe that the necessary and proper clause applies to the justification for the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8, due to the way the founding fathers interpreted it. If Congress were limited to warfare and policing, the government would only intervene to end lives, not save them.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown The federal government's place is outlined very clearly in the constitution, no where in that outline is there any mention of taking care of the physical needs of the individual citizen, that is a responsibility and authority reserved exclusively for the states. We have this system of a federal government over several state governments for a reason, because when the model is followed correctly the nation as a whole prospers. I blame income taxes for our general decline.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
The federal government has the power to tax. To claim that income tax is the reason for decline is preposterous: GDP grew in Eisenhower's administration with a 94% income tax for the highest earners. Scandinavian countries have a far higher tax rate and far higher quality of life indicators too - "the nation" is more accurately the very wealthy - "By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you... So you say stuff like... states' rights..." - Lee Atwater.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown Icome taxes weren't introduced in America until the sixteenth amendment, which was never legitimately ratified, and at the time the opposition to the amendment wanted to have it constitutionally capped at 2% for the highest earners, while those who supported it swore that income taxes would never get that high.
People have been arguing states rights since before the constitution was signed, so your quote is irrelevant.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
The people that were arguing in favour of state's rights successfully managed to retain slavery in a few states as the founding fathers ceded that it was not a federal issue. Far more important to maintain post offices than liberty and the pursuit of happiness: independence with dependants. Besides, the alternatives to income tax would be property tax and head tax and those would disproportionately affect the poor.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown Wrong, the alternative to income tax would be the federal government having less money. The government does not need trillions and trillions of dollars to run when all it is doing is the things it is given the authority to do in the constitution. Our debt to GDP ratio is at 100%, every other country that has ever had such a high ratio has failed. Unnecessary spending on a federal level is unconstitutional and does not promote the general welfare of the country.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
Well, our definitions of unnecessary are different. Every other industrial country has a system of public healthcare and higher quality of life outcomes (aka. the general welfare that the government ought to protect). The direct taxes were alluded to in the Constitution. According to wikipedia, the 16th amendment was ratified by Congress and the requisite states, I fail to see how it is unconstitutional? Anarchy is preferable to a police+post state.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown If there is to be a form of state insurance it would have to be provided by the individual states, not the federal government. The general welfare that the government is obligated to protect is the general welfare of the nation, not the individual people. It is also unconstitutional to have a standing federal military, instead we should have state militias under a federal leadership.
The manner in which the sixteenth amendment was ratified was not legitimate.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
What specifically about the sixteenth amendment was not legitimate? I'm not advocate of US military expenditure, but as far as I'm aware the limitation on standing armies has been that their orders have to be renewed at least every 2 years: there has been a standing army since 1784. If the federal government serves to protect states that fail to serve individuals, then IMO its power is illegitimate. The monarchists also said "for the good, not the people".
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown It comes down to the wording, and that Ohio wasn't a state, yet helped vote in favor of the amendment.
The federal government has no responsibility to individual citizens. That is a responsibility of the states, the entire purpose we of the tiered system of government we have is where responsibility lays. The Federal government is responsible for the nation as a whole and the states collectively. The states are responsible for themselves and their people.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
Ohio's lack of qualification for statehood was a technical fault that was corrected in 1953. Unless you think every amendment Ohio approved of between 1804 and 1953 should be rejected? The rate at which the Constitution has been amended is just over one amendment every ten years, with the majority of changes occurring within the first century of the first amendment. There is a case that the ability of Congress to collect taxes is hampered when citizens die.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
Also, the framers of the Constitution (writing in the Declaration of Independence) held that "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government": the ends referred to are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Government serves to endorse corporations contributing to 616k CHD deaths a year rather than save 45k lives through healthcare...
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
Forgot to mention, more states than the minimum necessary endorsed the 16th amendment, so Ohio is irrelevant unless one focuses on the technical detail that has been corrected since.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown How is the government being destructive to those ends in any way shape or form? There is a difference between not giving people free health insurance and not giving people healthcare. It is illegal for a hospital to refuse to treat you if you are sick. This insurance won't save lives, it'll save bank accounts, and that is not the government's responsibility. If the states want to do it they have that right, but the Federal government does not.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
The US is the only country where one can be ruined financially due to receiving treatment. Some individuals that simply can't afford insurance die as a result according to that study - presumably they have to make decisions based on providing food for their children or having healthcare. No epidemiological report states that the welfare of the country is better off as a result.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown None of that provides a reason for the government to get involved. How people chose to use their money is none of the governments business. The individual choices made by some people don't influence laws, there is no reason for a person to die because they don't have insurance so there is no reason for the government to provide it. Even if that wasn't the case there would still be no reason for the federal government to provide insurance. It will always be a state issue.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
Of course individual decisions to purchase influence laws. Corporate free speech controls elections, for one. Though the voice of the people is meant to be represented in Congress. The other issue is that the purchasing of firearms, drugs or child pornography have federal departments that regulate these things. If a person cannot afford both travel expenses and insurance or food and insurance or a home and insurance then that's ample reason to provide it.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown And yes, when it's an issue of law ALL technical issues must be addressed. Also, the wording of the amendment and the wording put before congress are different. Another technical issue that makes the amendment null.
mynameismatt2010 1 month ago
@mynameismatt2010
Again, the technical issue was fixed retrospectively. While that may not seem appealing pragmatically, it is a rock solid legal defence of the sixteenth amendment. The amendment was discussed and revised in the Senate, it's not the first time. Even the first amendment underwent several revisions before its final version. If all amendments which Ohio ratified before 1953 were rescinded, that'd include the 14th amendment and precedents set by cases.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
Not to mention that providing for "the general welfare" is allowable outside of the specific enumerated powers... the opposite is true. ANY positive effect on the "general welfare" of the union must be exercised solely through the innumerated powers. To claim that the government can assume any power it chooses, as long as they believe it benefits the union to do so diminishes the Constitution to a worthless rag which says "government may do anything it things is right".
Idiocy!
RyderSpearmann 1 month ago
Bad video.
Spoken like a true liberal I guess.
Doren is right about the general welfare clause.
The general welfare clause pertains ONLY to the United States, not the people.
There are only 3 agents under the Constitution: The states as a group (the United States), the individual states, and "the people".
The general welfare clause applies ONLY at the level of states as a group, not individual states and certainly not individuals themselves.
You studied the Constitution? My ass.
RyderSpearmann 1 month ago
@RyderSpearmann I have no idea if "Liberal Viewer" ever studied the constitution but I have read it once or twice. I fail to see anything in the document that states that general welfare is not for the people. Unless it's just for the Country itself such as roads bridges ect. I again state freely that I have no background in the constitution but I really don't see where it says this.
darkwarriorkane 1 month ago
@darkwarriorkane Article 1, Section 8 says: "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”. It does not say "the people". It says the United States... which is an entirely different concept. Not individual states. Not individual persons. Only that which is for the general welfare of the states in unity.
If it was for the general welfare of the people, it would have said "the general welfare of the people."
All you have to do is read it. It's right in front of you.
RyderSpearmann 3 weeks ago
@darkwarriorkane "They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson
See that? The welfare of the *union*. The structure of combined states. Not persons.
RyderSpearmann 3 weeks ago
@RyderSpearmann
It would also exclude persons of foreign citizenship like Hatians.
The union-states were redundant as the object of this "general welfare."
Likewise, states seceded only when others begin taxing them for their own special interest, as well as gerrymandering for such via unconstitutional laws, and then began plotting to overthrow the Supreme Court when it ruled them such.
So general welfare isn't just whatever a Congressional majority says, it has real meaning.
SovereignStatesman 2 weeks ago
@darkwarriorkane Let's hear from Alexander Hamilton, where he makes very clear that GENERAL welfare is the only Constitutional use of taxes: "The constitutional test of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose of *general* or *local* nature. If the former, there can be no want of constitutional power.. Whatever relates to the general order of the finances, to the general interests of trade etc., being general objects are constitutional ones for the application of money.''
RyderSpearmann 3 weeks ago
@RyderSpearmann And there is NOTHING more "local" than an individual benefit.
RyderSpearmann 3 weeks ago
@RyderSpearmann And now Washington "with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance,''. Here is George himself clearly delineating between the welfare of a person, and the Nation.
RyderSpearmann 3 weeks ago
@RyderSpearmann
I'd assume that studying the Constitution would be a requirement of becoming a lawyer. Knowing historical precedent would be an indicator of a good lawyer. Can you provide an instance where Congress refused to apportion aid or welfare because they determined it was unconstitutional?
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown I'm fairly certain that lawyers are the greatest threat to the Constitution... as they can and will argue anything to win a case... and you will find lawyers on BOTH sides of all constitutional issues... including slavery.
You *really* want to use lawyers as a baseline?
RyderSpearmann 3 weeks ago
@RyderSpearmann
You've just defined the whole problem.
Courts and elections were never intended to be the supreme arbiters of law, but rather the PEOPLE were always the supreme sovereigns; but the lawyers usurped this during the Jackson and Lincoln administrations, and now they've got the tail wagging the dog under an elite oligarchy of lawyers, with Lincoln, the grand-daddy of all shysters, as their patron-saint.
The people need to TAKE BACK their sovereignty.
SovereignStatesman 2 weeks ago
Under you definition of the general welfare clause, there isn't anything the gov can't do.
christo930 2 months ago
@christo930 From usconstitution . net: "Welfare
"welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
"Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution."
By this definition, the general welfare clause certainly doesn't apply to everything, but it certainly applies to health care.
scottandrewhutchins 1 month ago
@scottandrewhutchins You have to look at a dictionary from the late 18th century and you have to look at the federal papers and the notes from the constitutional convention. Public healthcare wasn't part of the plan.
christo930 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930 Neither were a lot of things we have now; however, that does not make it unconstitutional.
scottandrewhutchins 1 month ago
Lee Doren is a pundit in the making. He has no concern for truth.
CommitToFocus 2 months ago
"Logically eronious" forever!Please stop using this expression as much,it makes you look like YOU WANT to be intelligent but just fail!
Valandil00 2 months ago
bravo
BrandonEM09 2 months ago
BOOOORING
Serpico261 2 months ago
I just don't get this obama is proving that liberalism just doesnt work
thepolice911copeland 2 months ago
@thepolice911copeland No he doesn't. Obama, though claiming to be a progressive is anything but. He might be at heart, but on almost every opportunity he has caved to the republicans. He may be president, but for the most part, the republicans are running the show.
Swidhelm 2 months ago
@Swidhelm Hmm pay attention for a second okay? Social programs are the heart of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY less government and free market capatalism is the REP"UBLICAN PARTY...So nooo he has not caved into the republican party because for most of his term there was a democratic supermajority in the house and in congress and because you obviously have no idea what im talking about because you have done absolutely no research and you probably get your news from jon stewart and family guy let me explain
thepolice911copeland 2 months ago
@Swidhelm So a supermajority is where 2/3rds are more people in the house or senate are democratic so this means that for most of Obamas term Republicans could veto or challenge any of his bills or stimulus package plans...So how when he was following a completely liberal and democratic agenda has he let republicans run the show? The answer is he hasnt, most republicans are simply astonished at the lack of accomplishments he has had and how stupid he can be. So yeah nooo
thepolice911copeland 2 months ago
@thepolice911copeland The health reform ended up being completely botched because of concessions made to the republicans, and he's done very little else because when he tries the republicans vote it down, regardless of what it is. Obama has no spine, that's his biggest problem. When they were making cuts like crazy, cuts that Obama promised not to make, he made them and then some to appease the republicans.
Swidhelm 2 months ago
@Swidhelm What? This makes no sense he got almost everything he wanted passed because republicans couldnt vote it down. Yes he has no spine but republicans had nothing to do with it, promises to corporations, unions and ngo s did.
thepolice911copeland 2 months ago
@thepolice911copeland Dems have got almost nothing they wanted. Which is why those who voted for Obama are so fed up with him. He claims to be progressive, but acts very right wing. He has caved time and again to republicans. Hell he's Boehner's bitch.
Swidhelm 2 months ago
I didn't even know who Lee Doren was when I got into a discussion with him on one of his comment threads. I thought it was pretty civil, with the exception that he seems to start every paragraph with some belittling remark.
A few weeks later I tried to put a comment on one of his videos and found I had been blocked. What a squirrel.
Wrenchbender412i 2 months ago
Nationalized Banks, Car companies, Insurance, Airports, Transportation.
A National Police force, that is above the Law.
Made Unions Illegal.
and Several Wars and different fronts.
All of this has Come to Pass.
americanbandwidth 2 months ago
James Madison doesn't mention the internet! Youtube is not condoned under the Constitution and is purely a state matter. My country is not within the 13 States so I guess I'll have to uninstall it.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
If Doren had the reactions you said he did, than that certainly belies a stubborn ego. However, I think it would be disingenuous to call everything he says into question because he has made mistakes in his assertions. (I do agree with you that people need to do their own independent study either way.) I'm sure you have made more than one mistake in your posts as well. After all, we all have character flaws.
Yerevan1017 2 months ago
I got banned from his page too for pointing out factual errors as well as calling him to the carpet for disabling the ratings.
Made my whole week.
He's little more than a poor copy of Bill O'Reilly.
novaphoenix70 2 months ago
Wohoo I just got blocked on HTWW's or LDoren's channel for voicing dissent on his opinions :-)
Made my day!
ShinjukuHH 2 months ago
Thumbs of if ""How the world works"" has blocked you from posting a comment he didnt like, LOL.
The only people who block people simply because they disagree with them, are lunatics.
gulbirk 2 months ago
Jebus Fucking Christ, Liberal cats don't understand their opposition, so they immediately start puking out the term "right wing." Good sir StunnedByStupidity (nice Hungarian notation bro) even calls his a sociopath for completely superficial reason. This is why the Tea Party got a third of all their candidates elected nation wide: You guys refuse to even understand the other side. Political discourse, your doing it wrong.
Chrisrayholly 3 months ago
@Chrisrayholly Oh and before you peeps start crying foul over semantics, constantly likening someone to right wing sources, or dismissing them and said sources as if they were in cahoots is the same as calling said person "right wing." Libertarians and right wingers are not the same thing just as capitalism and corporatism are not the same. Please start learning the differences here.
Chrisrayholly 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lee Doren is a classic bully - overly aggressive and unnecessarily angered by anyone who disagrees wth him. He is rude, spiteful and immature!
mrekbass 3 months ago
I honestly think Lee is a psychopath - his ease of lying, his narcissism, his false superiority, his inability to learn from mistakes, superficial charm, his selfishness (held as a virtue), his contempt for those lower on the socio-economic ladder, absolutely NO conscience or embarrassment - and those VERY disturbing dead eyes - BTW there are many on the right that, I think, share this characteristic...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
Thank you, your the first liberal youtuber I have seen, that gives good arguments and has the ability to back it up.
UserPaaint 3 months ago
US politics is a form of belief tied to religion and is an act of will, not reason; an act of power, not agreement; an act of oppression, not contrition; and an act of fascism, not democracy: and herein lies the irony of the religious, that veil themselves with the compassion of another, whose Compassion is not their own, for theirs is the ugly state of nature where the strong rip the flesh from the weak for the lust of their own hunger, which gives credence to evolution, but not a loving God.
JusticeIsWhere 3 months ago
Lee is right. You are wrong - sorry.
Zresponder 4 months ago
Lee blocked me for leaving a dissident (but respectful) comment. Let's face it, lee is a punk ass, think skinned piece of shit who can't take anyone disagreeing with him. It's hard for me to take someone seriously who has as punchable a face as Lee Doren. He is an enormous piece of trash who isn't worth the attention of a respectable person like Allen Asch. But at the same time, I do love the pwnage. So keep slamming this little bitch ass corporate cocksucker.
DaHonestAbe 4 months ago
Liberal is not what liberals are. There is nothing liberating about being a liberal If you are calling for greater control of our lives by the government, that's the opposite of liberation. The modern day liberal has nothing in common with the Jeffersonian concept of liberal and liberty. So if we have people who call themselves liberals, who are subscribing to an ideology that is the opposite of the spirit of our founding documents, then they are on the wrong, and yes, bad side of things.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun The word 'liberal' has been skewed in US latest 30 years or so to mean social liberalism. Back at Jeffersons time, the liberalists opposed the power of the king, the noblemen, and the church. Those institutions lost their political power in the 19 century and the capitalist industrialists gained it. Almost all parties in western countries are liberal by 18 century standard. We are only fighting about what flavor of liberalism we want.
AngeCord 3 months ago
@AngeCord Nice revisionist history! Sorry to dissapoint you, but liberty means of and pertaining to liberty. Limited government in your lives. A voluntary society free from force and coercion. Mutual consent and voluntary exchange. You can't want the government to tell everyone what to do, and call yourself a liberal sorry. Doesn't work that way. Libertarianism is classical liberalism, which are LIBERALS. Collectivists and progressives hijacked the word, we should take it back.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AngeCord Nice revisionist history! Sorry to dissapoint you, but liberty means of and pertaining to liberty. Limited government in your lives. A voluntary society free from force and coercion. Mutual consent and voluntary exchange. You can't want the government to tell everyone what to do, and call yourself a liberal sorry. Doesn't work that way. Libertarianism is classical liberalism, which are LIBERALS. Collectivists and progressives hijacked the word, we should take it back.
AroundSun 3 months ago
lee doren is a pussy that is scared of debating. hahaha he is such a pathetic geek.
dfg93353 4 months ago
What you've done is understand the basic exchange of factual reality or policy understanding that plays out when you rationally discuss things with far right wingers or Tea Party people. In all my encounters here, I find the same facts to be true. They argue from a position of personal insults, outright lying, trying to change the subject, & skulking away to post the same lies above. It's not thoughtful rational political discussion, it's spam.
Bolgernow 4 months ago
hahaha liberal just pwned Lee
jcrongoXisXaXjerk 4 months ago
Rather it is LiberalViewer who misleads the viewers.
It is rather shameful that one intentionally avoids facts to suite one's own agenda.
howiseethings 4 months ago
I think Howtheworldworks is a lying dishonest snake
takerhbkfan 5 months ago 19
Lee Doren is kind of an idiot. Most of his information he gets is from pundits and than he parrots there opinion as if it's fact.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 5 months ago
you claim you have "expertise" in constitutional law. seeing as how most "experts" would have a doctorate, or related degree, i would like you to show me a photographed copy of your degree in constitutional law with my username sticky noted to it.
if you dont comply, you are a lying, misinforming prick who nit-picks every word someone whom you dont agree with says.
nickmax123 5 months ago
Just do a John Stewart V Bill O'Reilly already.
With you being Stewart, of course.
hiimgod801 5 months ago 7
EVERYONE makes mistakes and disrupts the truth.
theend1011 5 months ago
LiberalViewer is the one who "misleads". Just because someone doesn't address every little nuance or rabbit trail a liberal might want to take things, doesn't mean the overall points are not accurate. Liberals have always used a little truth to lie, and I see it every day. I'm an expert in how people lie from 20 years of dealing with anti-mormons in how they do the same with my religion. Every issue the whole truth tells a very different story than the anti-mormon or liberal will tell you.
leeuniverse 5 months ago
Howtheworldworks should be a poster child for the young republicans in america. No facts, no research but damnit he bleeds red, white and blue.
kushXhaze 5 months ago 2
Sorry but posting an obvious sarcastic "Thanks for the video :-)" after every one of your comments is not, as you say, "treating someone civil".
1uphydro 5 months ago
deunk the debunk of the debunkvid. you guys are little kids. try and do something, you know, useful.
Latrat 5 months ago
Just thought everyone should know that Lee already debunked this video.
Salvysahagun 5 months ago 2
@Salvysahagun wrote: "...Lee already debunked this video"
Actually, you can see links to pages on which I debunk every one of Lee's attacks on me (to which Lee has never responded) at
liberalviewer(.)com/htww
Don't forget to take the parentheses out of that web address as well as any spaces YouTube might add before pasting it into your browser.
I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding and
thanks for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 5 months ago 16
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LiberalViewer
honestly wtf
I've been calling your ass out for months on your comment page with no avail. and now you decide to respond. Which proves the point I made earlier. you cherry pick.
Why don't you just change your channel name to "debunking Fox news" (Nothing wrong with that we all do it) because it seems every time I reccomend a video for you to try to debunk you fail.
also you never gave an honest response on how you took his "stalin" quote out of context.
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
@Salvysahagun
I gets 100+ comments every day so you'll forgive me if I don't remember all your comments over a period of months. I answered you last comment because you said something factually wrong ("Lee already debunked this video") that I could easily correct by referencing many pages I already prepared at liberalviewer(.)com/htww
(the 1st link there leads to a page discussing out-of-context Stalin accusation)
Again, I hope that clears up your misunderstanding and
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 5 months ago 15
@LiberalViewer
So I have to say something factually wrong to get your attention?
Thats exactly your problem your to scared to approach anything that challenges you.
I have posted many comments on your page and videos and yet when you find one thing wrong thats when you respond.
I could argue all day with 3rd graders but does that make me smart? NO!
Bush does NOT= republican.
Jesse Jackson JR does NOT = Democrat
both = MORON
now get some balls and do some REAL journalism as you would put it
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
@LiberalViewer
On the issue of your name. Why not add to your note on your channel and say "I am not a member of the Democrat or Republican party, I am a member of the Independent party. I hope this clears up any confusion that people have about my name" Your original note was good but I believe you should add what I wrote to the original one.
patsrule213 5 months ago
@LiberalViewer Anything you say is basically debunked by third grade logic, because you aren't even a liberal to begin with. Liberals can't do anything without conservatives by design. You couldn't win an argument if your life depended on it. You are only liberal with other peoples money
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun gtfo troll.
N33DL3R 3 months ago
@N33DL3R Awwww. Are you a liberal too? Do you stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalalala I dont care about facts!! Yes, I believe you do, or you wouldn't be a well intentioned leftist with bad policy results
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Stfu you marxist, why don't you worship your hero, stalin, privately.I miss the days when cops beat you filthy commie hippies half to death.
N33DL3R 3 months ago
@N33DL3R Marxist? You're joking right?
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Maybe he called you a troll becuase you just say shit without proof, then insult like a anger child, then never provide proof of why his points can be "debunked by third grade logic." Btw, I'm not a liberal :D
lovesXtoXspoog 3 months ago
@lovesXtoXspoog "Maybe he called you a troll becuase you just say shit without proof"
No, everything I say is backed up.
First, we can start by looking at modern liberals. There is nothing liberating about being a liberal. If you want greater control over our lives by the government, that is the opposite of liberation. Modern liberals have nothing in common with the Jeffersonian concept of liberal and liberty.
Furthermore, the constitution is enough proof, why don't you read it sometime
AroundSun 3 months ago
@Salvysahagun It's well known, that most lying, the falsest ppl, and the most deceiving ppl are the ones calling them selves believers.
I can't take anyone of you serious ever.
Either you delibaretely lie, or you don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
And that include your own 'holy' books. :)
BelieveNoGod 2 months ago
@Salvysahagun
"We all do it"? Your three videos are wrestling videos. LiberalViewer has uploaded over 100 videos demonstrating Fox News bias. You've maligned his commendable efforts (and your own argument) with your faint praise.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@gamerunknown Their are just as many dumbs videos with MSNBC and Liberal Viewer denys that.
To call himself a "liber journalist" and only attack Fox is dishonest
Salvysahagun 2 months ago
@Salvysahagun
That wasn't your point. You were decrying him for attacking Fox News almost as if there were no rational adults under the misapprehension that Fox News was a "fair and balanced" news organisation: saying that "we all do it". You've shifted the goalposts to the two wrongs fallacy (MSNBC does it, so it's wrong to criticse Fox for doing it) and equivocating (Fox may distort the facts consistently, but MSNBC did it too). "Liberal" is just a declared bias. You can make MSNBC vids.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@LiberalViewer
here's some REAL free market and libertarian ideal that you would look foolish debunking
Reason TV
Econ Stories. - Fear the Boom and the Bust rap battle or Fight of the Cenury
Peter Schiff show - Peter Schiff was right 2.0, or Debunking Warren Buffets Tax Myth or his Debate with Cenk Uygur of TYT (he made Cenk look like a school girl.)
I've been sending you suggestions for months. Please stop cherry picking and challenge yourself any one can debunk Fox News its not hard.
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
@Salvysahagun Don't take it personally, people that have agendas never listen to rational arguments. They nitpick and find flaws in others so they don't have to examine their own beliefs. HTWW and LV are both sharp guys but sometimes I think that they BOTH let their prejudices inhibit them from finding any common ground. Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what HTWW says but again, I think that LV makes some valid points. Who knows, maybe they do have common ground we don't know about...
capstar7075 5 months ago
@capstar7075
He's still a cherry pickers.
LV has completly ignored my valid points and only digs deep into find one invalid point.
But thats the only thing lawyers these days are good at. Picking the flaws and attacking them and ignoring other valid arguments.
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
@Salvysahagun wrote: "LV has completly ignored my valid points and only digs deep into find one invalid point."
If you've made any "valid points," I missed them. Mainly, I saw you complaining that I did not make videos on the topics of your choosing but the remedy for that complaint is to make your own videos because, then, you get to choose the topic.
I'm glad to see, however, that you have at least admitted that your original defense of Lee Doren was an "invalid point."
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 5 months ago
@LiberalViewer
Well after looking through this video all you did was go to other videos of his and not talk the video he made in response to you.
How much of you footage in this video was lee responding to you?
Classic trait of American Politician thou. Just move on to another talking point.
You are a Fox News debunker. Thats it. plain and simple.
And debunking Fox news is something 3rd graders can do
How about you discuss idiots like Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson Jr, or Maxine Waters?
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
HTWW is a fucking faggot. He knows fuck all about economics and blocked me for pointing out his bullshit.
- a libertarian
tjohn1986 5 months ago
How old is Lee Doren?
TOTCD 5 months ago
The american conservative values, are all about protecting the interests of the bourgeousie and upholding imperialist invasions and domination for resources, thoroughly exploiting the third world while using scapegoats as a means of denying the factualities that arise from the consequences of it.
Just spark a friggin' revolution, nationalize the economy (under dem. workers' control), and expose 'n burn these motherfuckers. People over the planet have shed enough blood for this upper class orgy.
Counterreactionary 6 months ago 3
HTWW blocked me from commenting on his videos for merely criticizing one of his videos. I didn't say anything offensive but merely explained why I thought he was wrong. I thought he was all about American values such as freedom of speech? I guess not. Not when it is to his disadvantage.
jonahfox 6 months ago
And you know WHY Lee doesn't respond? Well first of all, he is inept, second, he's wrong, third, he won't admit he is wrong and fourth, the majority of people that watch his videos... oppose him so it would take most of his life to respond to negative remarks (I actually feel privileged as he actually had the time to delete my posts[which were worded as a friendly debate, not abusive at all] which isn't much of a privilege I admit), and with as many subscribers as he has, that is a fair effort.
Smokinjoewhite 6 months ago
Does LiberalViewer put biased questions at the end of every video because he can't see how wrong he is? or Does LiberalViewer understand how wrong he is and decide to ignore his bias anyway?
capstar7075 6 months ago
@capstar7075 "Does LiberalViewer put biased questions at the end of every video because he can't see how wrong he is? or Does LiberalViewer understand how wrong he is and decide to ignore his bias anyway?" Do you understand how stupid both your questions are?
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Lol, yes I do. That was the whole point. I was mocking the questions that LiberalViewer asks.
capstar7075 5 months ago
@capstar7075 Very interesting vids, but I agree, sometimes poorly posed questions....
WhyMeMoFo 5 months ago
@capstar7075 hi lee
Minkki82 6 months ago
@Minkki82 My name's Kyle
capstar7075 5 months ago
Comment removed
capstar7075 6 months ago
This was great!
tazeryoot67 6 months ago
Wow...This analysis fails. Go watch Lee's response and watch this guy get walked all over.
TheReviewer777 6 months ago
I am a supporter of many of Lee's videos but I think his own popularity has fed into his ego and he's started making distortions himself and not conceding to his mistakes. I'm a conservative, so obviously I agree with him often, but as of late I've been taking what he says with more skepticism. So in short: Sometimes he is very factual, and that's when I like him. Other times, especially lately, he's become a bit too proud and distorted. That's a conservative perspective for ya.
rockon6191 6 months ago
@rockon6191 I'm communist I don't really ever agree with him. I don't really ever agree with many peoples actually :\
fenix144 6 months ago
@rockon6191 Agreed. I'm a fan of Lee but your analysis was spot-on.
DarthKrattus 6 months ago
I was watching his series of videos entitled "LiberalViewer Deliberately Distorts the Facts," and he makes logic leaps and correlations that just don't make sense. To his credit, he does show MSNBC bias in Distorts the Facts part 3. However, I have yet to watch your video to which he was referring, so I can't really say if he was being fair to you or not.
Dormirai 6 months ago
He is prolly not unable to understand... just unwilling to admit he is wrong because of danger of losing face... Admitting he is wrong will lose him viewers while the stupid ones will agree in his ad hominum attacks on you and live on in blissfull ignorance
Cattaclysmic 6 months ago
In answer to the first question: No he doesn't realize he's full of garbage.
In answer to the second question: He tells upper class white males exactly what they want to hear. Defending their illegitimate wealth and privileged. He's just (as Malcolm X says) a house Negro.
MaoistRebelNews2 6 months ago
Police are legitimate? lol that's a good one Lee you fascist
MaoistRebelNews2 6 months ago
You can never enlighten the ignorant to the fact that they are ignorant until they accept that and become enlightened. Next is the fact you ask if he is trying to be intentional or not? I could say yes and no at the same time but in the end what does it matter? OH one more thing I know this is nerdy to say but this answers your why would they believe him question Wizards First Rule. Goggle that for your answer :-D
Live, Love and Learn. < my way of life
chromeshellking 7 months ago
GREAT Video!
HowtheWorldJerks is a typical ignorant and hypocritical CONservaTARD Moron.
NitWitMitt 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says "Why the long face?". The horse says "My wife has cancer."
imboredsendmemail@gmail.com
imboredsendmemail 7 months ago
Lee Doren is Venomfang X with a law degree. He is desperately trying to get a show on Faux "News" and in order to get that job, he must hone his lying skills.
heathdwatts 7 months ago
I love cognitive dissonance! OBAMA BIDEN 2012!
LeftWingPOG 7 months ago
HTWW thinks the world works how he says it works.
guyman117 7 months ago
HTWW replied to you as if he where a child. "NO. I'm right. Always right. You wrong. LIARLIARLIAR."
ColoredGrayscale 8 months ago
Sometimes I wonder why people argue so much about precise numbers and made up rules. Things are messed up and need to be changed. Everyone can start small and rethink his consume behavior. And it is not much about reduction and/or abstinence, but more about rethinking the sources and selecting between them, as far as there are options.
dailydols 8 months ago
You can nit pick anyone's videos for little problems within each of their sentences. This is youtube, and vocal discussion can be flawed. The fact of the matter is, Lee has posted numerous intelligent, well studied and factually accurate videos and you, Liberalviewer have a vendetta against him because he is winning people over to conservatism. Dont pretend that you dont despise his beliefs because you do and you are incapable of discrediting Lee.
MyDormantSoul 8 months ago
@MyDormantSoul He JUST discredited him about 16 times in one video, using evidence and references.
Where are YOU getting your facts? Fox News?
TheEtceteraEtcetera 8 months ago
@TheEtceteraEtcetera you're an idiot. Just because Im a conservative or libertarian, doesnt mean I watch FOX News. I dont even live in America, so I cant watch it even if I wanted to. Obviously they've been discredited LONG AGO, and their decline in ratings shows that. Faux is a sham and us libertarians are ALSO aware of that, dont pretend that we arent. As for Lee doren, Liberalviewer has barely touched upon Lee's library of videos, he's selectivly picking ones where Lee messes up a little.
MyDormantSoul 8 months ago
@MyDormantSoul Of course he's selectively picking videos, he's offering a rebuttal to a direct criticism. That's the great thing about LiberalViewer, he doesn't mindlessly attack those he doesn't agree with, he takes direct misappropriation of fact and counters it.
I'm not denying Lee's abilitly to make an intelligible conversation, In this SPECIFIC circumstance I'm pointing out the fault in your outlandish claims of 'vendetta', a common claim made by the right when they have no real argument
TheEtceteraEtcetera 8 months ago
@TheEtceteraEtcetera selectively picking off videos doesnt warrant a complete dismissal of credibility, something too many people have just done as a result of this video, you dont see any problem with that? Lee doesnt "mindlessly attack," he picks a subject of criticism and proceeds to go into a detailed dialogue on it, he's no more accurate than an MSNBC pundit, both give their respective opinions and both are open to critique, Lee is only under fire because he's rightwing, thats a vendetta
MyDormantSoul 8 months ago
@MyDormantSoul
They don't attack Lee for being rightwing. They attack Lee because he distorts the facts, and he misleads his viewers. Lots of people expose Lee for his dishonesty, and he responds by blocking people because they disagree with his opinion. Lee even attacked one of his subscribers when she wanted him to reveal his subcriber list to disprove the sock account myth. Lee then called her a fool. Why would Lee attack one of his fellow subscibers? That's why people hate Lee Doren.
patsrule213 8 months ago
@patsrule213 TheYoungTurks blocked me from commenting on their videos and removed me from their subscriber list and they have a history of that being done too. U dont see the liberalviewer attacking his fellow liberals, and he never will because it doesnt serve his political agenda like attacking a popular right winger does. And like I said before, you say he distorts facts, I say he makes mistakes. Do you listen to his videos regularily? He has GREATLY improved since these EARLY examples of him
MyDormantSoul 8 months ago
@MyDormantSoul
From what I've seen, liberalviewer is not a true left-winger. He acts more like an independent. He even says on his channel to check the definition of liberal, and it means that he is open minded. I believe that Liberalviewer's agenda is to tell the truth, and when I watch Lee's video's, it seems like he wants everyone to vote Republican. Lee thinks that the Democrats have cause all of our problems, but both parties are bought off by "a higher power". It's both parties fault.
patsrule213 8 months ago