After Arnold: California gubernatorial candidate Tom Campbell.

[theamericaninfidel1]

Let me know when you guys become a red state so I can go there on vacation.

[SoldierCyfix]

dude if you want Arny's position you better start lifting big and juicing up

[gombet]

Tom Campbell seems to be a brilliant man who truly knows where we have to go in California.

Once again the republican party has fallen for a billionaire in Meg Whitman as with many of the other candidates who have spent a minimum of $25 million of their own money where Whitman has spent $68 million of her own money. The incentive is clearly patriotism towards her own special interests and not the people of California.

[jbond5150]

republicans would be alright if if they stopped with the antiabortion and antigay rhetoric and moderated their views, much like campbell, on fiscal issues.

[64eugenia]

For the first time in its history, productive people and businesses are leaving California -- and in record numbers -- because of choking and burdensome taxes and regulations. Radical wasteful spending from liberals in Sacramento -- and yes, Arnold is a Hollywood liberal! -- have ruined a once great state.

Let's restore it by voting for TOM CAMPBELL!!

[NegativeNick]

@64eugenia he already dropped out

[swankrecords]

Campbell is an idiot. But you knew that already.

[lenny380]

Good luck winning in California that plan of less Government - they have the Biggest funded state - hence the fiscal tragedy.

[slightlygone]

im voting for this guy

[jameslrd]

So am I

[vorbeigehende]

Arnold propose the same

he calls it Rainy Day Fund

to watch his point of view:

fora(dot)tv

search arnold budget

[samuils]

I have an idea, before even consodering a candidate, shall we look at their voting record hmmmm????

[bapyou]

Campbell earned a Phd in economics under Milton Freidman's tutelage. Freidman's economic theories were the inspiration for regime change and the installation of US-friendly dictators in countries throughout the world. Prime example: Chile in 1973 where the democratically-elected Salvadore Allende was assassinated by the CIA and the dictator Pinochet was installed. This connection alone is reason enough to disqualify this huckster for the governor of the 8th largest economy in the world.

[Gurkburkinator]

stop reading Naomi Kleins fairytales

[bapyou]

What fairytales? Which ones do you think I should read?

[vorbeigehende]

try

Igor Shafarevich

The Socialist Phenomenon

(it's available online from wikipedia)

or

any book on modern history

(see Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot

etc)

[bapyou]

Try William Blum's 'Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since Wrodl War II', Common Courage Press 2004. (Not available online from a discredited source of information.)

(1) Take your propaganda and ... (2) stuff up your ass.

[vorbeigehende]

What is the reason to ask if you're a priori

not interested in other points of view?

Discussion (discussion?) is over.

[bapyou]

Propaganda is not discussion.

If you know nothng about the links between Chicago School economics, and the atrocities and anti-democratic maneouvers prosecuted by the CIA for the past 50 years, then there is no discussion.

[vorbeigehende]

OK, CIA is to blame for Pinochet.

Pinochet was a military dictator.

Pinochet used Friedman's economic theories. So what?

Friedman's point of view was:

capitalism doesn't imply freedom

but freedom implies capitalism.

The real question is:

did Friedman ever advocate

violent overthrows of governments

for establishing of his economic model?

[bapyou]

"freedom implies capitalism"

The current economic malaise is proof of capitalism's corrupt core.

[bapyou]

"CIA ... Pinochet ... dictatorship ... Pinochet used Freidman's economic theories. So what?"

No. You have everything completely incorrect. Pinochet was installed following the CIA-inspired assassination of Allende. The economic theories of the Chicago School inspired THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT to take such actions against Allende and many other left-leaning governments.

So, did Freidman ever advocate such action? The question is moot. He inspired such things.

[vorbeigehende]

This is called "Save a tree. Kill a beaver" reasoning.

G.W.Bush used "spread democracy" motto to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. But does this devalue the whole concept of democracy?

On the other hand, the Marxist ideology states its means absolutely crystal clear: violent revolution. So one can legitimately blame the terror in Soviet Union/China

on the Marxism.

So the question is not moot.

It's essential.

[bapyou]

"Marxist ideology states its means ... crystal clear: violent revolution"

And the violence perpetrated against the world for centuries under the guise of "free enterprise" is irrelevant?

I get you. You're a libertarian with your John Fucking Stossel video on your channel.

Libertarian (def.): A crypto-right wing nut job often heard endlessly repeating this phrase "Free markets! Free markets!", promoting his idealized notion of capitalism while disavowing any of its evils.

[bapyou]

And further, you libertarian asshat, with respect to democracy, violence and Marxism, Salvador Allende was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED in Chile in 1972. No violence necessary. It was precisely because of Allende's "intelligent leftism" that the CIA planned the disruptive destabilzation and coups. Source for this information? The CIA's own report on the matter. Information about such operations are in the public sphere now. The only violence was perpetrated by capitalist forces.

[vorbeigehende]

My friend, you're confusing libertarians

and neocons. Libertarian point of view

is that the government must be restricted.

(you americans have probably the best constitution in the world, although you don't use it very often)

Your government meddled in other people's business. It has absolutely nothing to with capitalism.

I don't disavowal evils of capitalism.

But evils of communism/autoritarism

are much worse.

sincerely yours,

asshat

[bapyou]

"evils of communism/autoritarism (sic)

are much worse (than capitalism)"

Would you like to debate this? You are guaranteed to lose.

I've just now watched a documentary on investment in Cambodia & the obliteration of peasant property. Why? So that wealthy foreign investors can sell vacation packages and condominiums to wealthy westerners. 1000s of Cambodians displaced & dispossessed of their land. Capitalism in action; profits realised. Did you get in on the action?

[vorbeigehende]

"Would you like to debate this?" I try

I will be a strange debate though.

I (born in Soviet Union) will defend

capitalism and you (american) will

defend socialism.

[bapyou]

You made the initial claim that Marixism = violence and capitalism does not. You go first.

[vorbeigehende]

The very essence of Marxism is coercion.

The Communist Manifesto states

8. Equal liability of all to labour.

Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Now capitalism. It's based on private property. The main function of the state

is therefore to protect property and life.

(5th and 14th Amendment)

If the state doesn't fulfill this function,

there can be no capitalism.

This is probably the case in Cambodia

[bapyou]

There are so many contradications in what you've just written that I don't have time to list them all. Good-bye.

[kait112]

So does this guy have a chance of being then? If so, awesome.

[XCritonX]

How about a state constitution amendment that limits the budget to a % of GDP for the state. Programs would have to compete for funding out of that %.

[netmasta10bt]

what interest?

[TheMarketAssassin]

He seems kinda cool ... charismatic

[grraadd]

but bankruptcy is good - especially possibility of bankruptcy. All governments and nations should know that they can be sold off for debts - it will be healthy for them to bear that knowledge in mind.

It will stop them from stupid spending and borrowing.

[libertyfizz]

Did I miss it did he say anything about marijuan legalization? It would be the biggest boost to CA economy if they would let that industry take off and start also growing hemp. Would this guy stand up to the FED? I am thinking he would not.

[caltrop69]

Wow!

I can see why Marijuana is still illegal.

Why can't you just watch the video, and see for yourself?

[libertyfizz]

Because politicians won't just come out an say this is stupid to keep this plant off the market?

It is at 5:15 in the video. He said that MJ shouldn't be made legal just for taxes. It should be legalized because it is the right thing to do. And he gave examples of countries which have legalized MJ and their crime rates have actually gone down.

I am not talking about just the drug but the none drug Hemp from which 100s of products can be manufactured. It is stupid to make hemp illegal.

[caltrop69]

libertyfizz: Agreed.

[truthsabre7]

With all the union contracts ....no one can "fix" California.

[PoliticalMe]

Thanks for the video.

I must have watched a different video from some of the others who left comments.

This guy seems like just another politician. No wonder Kalifornia is so corrupt.

[humanman65]

Could someone answer this for me:

Out of who's pocket does this interest come?

What is america investing in internationally to bolster this "interest" gained from the pay back of the horrendous 'bail out"? I would also like to know how long politicians have waited for interest in the past.

On MaryJ, that was the first time I've heard a politician get practical.

also, it can't be that banks own America, banks can fail and be bought that makes USA for sale.

[Gilla1ness]

I think this guy is a wannabe libertarian!Look up his record,and how he votes?Talk is mighty cheep these days,and odds are that if they're a politician,and their lips are moving..............Bull shit is pouring out!!!!

[Nexus974]

That makes no sense.

A politician lies to further his/her own ends. This guy isn't going to get the keys to the governers office talking like a libertarian.

[rrush2214]

i like this guy

very libertarian, obviously a big supporter of personal responsibility

[sexlessparents]

amazing man, run for president

[Libertarianist]

If he is unsure whether marijuana should be legalized, he's NOT a libertarian.

[0bodobod0]

I guess I'm not a libertarian then? I support test legalizing marijuana in some states before outright legalizing everywhere just to be safe.

[Gilla1ness]

That's like if Lincoln had said,"I support freeing a few slaves,to see if it's safe".The thing is,it's wrong to prohibit Cannabis in the first place,and every day more innocent people go to jail,and more tax dollars are wasted on a terribly failed drug war!Decriminalize the herb now!!!!

[soicuw]

that would probably happen naturally as it is because there are only a certain amount of states that would even consider looking at legalization. Hopefully, other states would then take up measures to legalize, and would likely base their programs on what they saw in other statea

[Libertarianist]

To be safe from what?

Legalizing marijuana could not possibly increase crime, in fact, undoubtedly crime would sharply decrease. And whether it increases consumption is irrelevant according to libertarianism.

[0bodobod0]

I contest your statement with observations of what my peers do once they get stoned, some of which include taking a shit on someone's lawn, throwing garden gnomes through windows of said lawn owner's house, and reckless driving. I am against Federal criminalization of marijuana, but that does not mean that states accept by default that there will be no negative consequences. i suggested testing in certain states because there is no conclusive data on the net benefit or detriment to society.

[caltrop69]

How stoned are you, such that you think he suggested that?

He said that studies indicate a "decrease" in crime when it's been legalized...You suggest that he said the opposite, here.

Are you a liar, who WANTS Marijuana to remain illegal, or a propagandist who likes rewriting history?

Are you irritated by someone who is behind BOTH civil liberties AND fiscal liberties, just because you can't use the government to steal money from others?

[Libertarianist]

I wasn't talking about Campbell, I was replying to a youtuber who said that marijuana should be SLOWLY legalized "just in case"

Please refrain from attacking people until you understand the context of their comments.

[caltrop69]

Libertarianist: Darn it!

I know I'm not the best example of writing the handle of who I'm responding to, but that was damned confusing.

It appeared as though you were responding to the video.

I miss forums and threads...They're easier to follow.

[bittergunowner12]

You don't have to support every single issue to be a Libertarian.

[Libertarianist]

But I can not understand how your mind could possibly justify the illegality of cannabis if you understand the first thing about libertarianism.

[caltrop69]

He was just suggesting that it was irresponsible to hang a fiscal rescue of the state on TAXING it! I didn't get any indication, from what he said, that it was irresponsible to legalize it.

Perfectly Libertarian, IMHO.

I'll vote for him.

[Libertarianist]

If you read the hierarchy you'll find that I didn't accuse him of anything. I said "If he is unsure..."

I agree that marijuana shouldn't have any special tax. What got to me was his statement "if it's the right thing to do..."

Now, this does not indicate whether or not he supports marijuana legalization. But it does sound like someone who isn't sure.

And IMHO anyone who truly believes in liberty would have absolutely NO hesitance in arriving at the conclusion that marijuana should be legal.

[caltrop69]

Libertarianist: This is an interesting point, though...

In spite of the fact that we got off on the wrong foot, this intrigues me...

Here's the hypothetical: We can LEGALIZE something that was formerly illegal...IF we tax it.

Taxes, of course, increase the size of the government. Government eventually strangles freedom.

Basically, the question is: "Would you trade a freedom for today, for someone else's power to take it from you, in the future?"

[Libertarianist]

There's actually nothing wrong with the government being wealthy. Except for eminent domain, government transactions, like all other transactions, are voluntary, and thus legitimate. The problem comes from how the government gets its money. Usually government increases its coercion to increase revenue and the citizens become less free. But that's not the case with this proposed twin issue.

[caltrop69]

Not exactly what I was asking...

While you suggest the voluntary "transactions" of government are "legitimate," I think you're skirting their primary role: The use of force.

I'd challenge you to show me a government that doesn't spend windfalls on bureaucratic expansion. Bureaus and departments which are empowered to independently make "policy."

I'll rephrase more narrowly: Would you be OK with creating a new government department, in exchange for the decriminalization of marijuana?

[caltrop69]

It should absolutely be legal! All drugs should be.

But not at the price of a bigger government.

[Libertarianist]

But the government would shrink, the number of police officers would shrink.

[caltrop69]

Why? Do you think they'd fire police officers, just because they weren't policing Marijuana, anymore?

In California, we barely police marijuana, as is...It's, sort of, a "tacked on" count, when someone is arrested for another reason, but rarely, if ever, is it the sole reason that someone is arrested here.

I still contend that history indicates government growth, with an increase in revenue.

[caltrop69]

If you don't support liberty, I'd say you're a piss-poor excuse for a Libertarian.

[bittergunowner12]

I support liberty, how about you shut up before you start pointing fingers.

[caltrop69]

How about you start pointing fingers and not shut up! ;p

[lives2live]

This guy really seems to have his head screwed on straight.

[ZuzoFriend]

Campbell is extremely reasonable, I wouldn't mind seeing him here in Sacramento.

[jxwhit8]

Campbell... NO THANK YOU.

[bittergunowner12]

Oh please and what do Dems have to offer? Jerry Brown, Bill Lockyer, Gavin Newsome? All career politicians who can't run anything.

[jxwhit8]

Dems... HELL NO. Campbell has been doing this awhile... he could be considered a career politician. He is certainly a Statist.

[bittergunowner12]

True, but I like him better than Whitman....

[takerdust]

Instead of saying "get government out of marriage" he just supports gay marriage.

That pretty much cancels his chances of winning.

[Thorbie]

I don't think so. I think he'll get a lot of anti-prop 8 voters this way, including some Democrats. Republicans will vote for him for his fiscal policy.

Although I would prefer getting the government out of marriage, I'm sure that as a policy would hurt his chances of winning right now.

[ApolloD7]

quite the contrary

[bittergunowner12]

Eh Prop 8 passed 52% to 48%.... the problem with Campbell is hes very articulate but has no money.

[takerdust]

Well, not only a huge percentage of that 52% would think twice about voting for him, a sizable percentage of that 48% would be easily swayed toward so called "socialist progressive" rhetoric, and they won't even give him a second look.

[bittergunowner12]

Well if it comes down to it, I might be one of the 52% to vote for him.

[Scoforever]

The fiscal plan sounded very good.

[texichan]

I like this guy - he's ok for a Republican! I hope he's elected, for California's sake

[bittergunowner12]

This guy used to be my Congressman, he isn't bad.