Added: 1 year ago
From: LibertyPen
Views: 128,879
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (977)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Hitler

    ... (bad to good people)

    Dalai Lama 

    Ghandi

    Jesus

    Milton Friedman

  • Awesome video, so much wisdom in 7 minutes - thanks for sharing

  • FUCK OBAMA.

  • I got a free lunch once.

  • This should be called the "Free Lunch Straw Man." Nobody thinks that "Government can spend money at nobody's expense." So much of his arguments depend on some fictional "other side" that doesn't exist.

    What Friedman and others suffer from is the "I did it all on my own" fallacy. The idea that someone can make a billion dollars at nobody's expense. That the rich made their money on an island all by themselves with no help at all from society and the commons.

  • This is a complete fallacy, goods and services can be provided at no ones expense because of technology. Machines can today eliminate 93% of the workforce, with healthcare and engineers only temporarily being an exception. These capitalist dip shits delay the use of technology in order to keep the workforce in order to perpetuate capitalism. Basically everyone in the world today is working for no reason.

  • @habadashery2009 whhaaa? 93% of what workforce? i was unaware of the fact that farms can manage themselves. i was unaware that cattle can be breed by machine. i was unaware that grocery stores stocked themselves. are you high?

  • @apeironishome farms can be managed by machinery and animal products have no nutritional benefit over plant matter, and they are completely inefficiently. Why feed a cow tons of food and then eat the cow, when you can eat the food the cow is eating?

  • @apeironishome Every time I listen to a communist, it serves to reaffirm the fact that they don't live in reality. It seems they've never grown up and moved out of their parents' house and worked to earn a living. If that's not the case, then they're clinically insane from too many prescribed drugs, and now they're permanently in fantasy land. Having a conversation with these people is like talking to a wall.

  • @Vindigary Have you ever had a conversation with an actual communist?

  • @sinistar99 In the U.S. its called liberalism. I use the term "communist" because it's a more accurate definition.

  • @habadashery2009 What a witless dolt! I haven't the time or inclination to describe how technology actually works. How soon would your burger arrive at the pick-up window if nobody opened the store? So steeped in Leftist propaganda, you are incapable of answering the above question. It is clear that you haven't put in an honest day's work...or you had a Union job.

  • @toetapper04 machines can replace anyone in the service industry, and machines can now self improve and fix themselves. They have self automated restaurants and grocery stores now, if you don't believe me than google it for yourself. The only reason most people don't realize this is because it is shielded from public knowledge.

  • @toetapper04 When will silly liberals ever admit, that mankind didn't HAVE welfare or taxes for thousands of years, and yet managed to get this far, only to ruin the economy? LOL

  • @evelsteev Hahah When will silly government haters move to Somalia? Yes mankind didn't HAVE welfare and taxes for thousands of years! Go read up on some history of what that was like for 99.999% of the population you dumbass. Better yet go move to Somalia! No government! No taxes! no regulations... Why aren't you there? No you enjoy the safety and opportunities that this big giant cushy government helps facilitate us providing for ourselves.

  • @sinistar99 Somalia doesn't have a free market system. How great THEY turned out to be. I DID read history, genius, you just admitted they didn't have welfare, so we don't need it now, lame-brain. You don't even point out what era of history you're basing your "99%" nonsense on, braniac. I'm not in Somalia, because they don't a free market economy. You know, that produced the very computer you're using right now. Yeah, I enjoy the "cushy" services that I had to pay for, involuntarily. NO THANKS.

  • @sinistar99 Somalia? Free market economy? What the FUCK are you talking about? You're a complete idiot! How could you utter such nonsensical conjecture unless you have no clue what you're talking about? You're just repeating communist propaganda, and you're so stupid you don't even realize what you're doing.

  • @habadashery2009 HaHaHa! Technology is cool, but it hasn't completely gotten rid of the work load. I think you're living a couple hundred years in the future. There are farmers working to grow the food that you eat. Before the next time you eat a strawberry, you should go help our Mexican slaves pick them, and then you'll know what work is and why your strawberries aren't free.

  • @Vindigary You aren't listening to what I am saying, the whole point of machinery is to completely eliminate work so that corporations can't use the working class as slaves and we have the technology today to do it. The only reason it hasn't been used yet is becuase this would destroy capitalism, technology is being held back in order to perpetuate the need for the work force.

  • @habadashery2009 Wow! I understand there are conspiracies, and it's all about money. But, holy fuck! You're giving these people too much credit. Sure, they're clever conspirators, but the machinery "has't been used yet because it would destroy capitalism?" You need to come back to reality. Even supposing you're sane, you're argument doesn't make sense anyway. How does it benefit ANYONE to hold back technology for the sake of keeping an UNNEEDED human workforce?

  • @Vindigary Becuase if there was no workforce there would be no money transactions and thus capitalism would not work. Thus it is within business owners best interests to keep people working unnecessary jobs. You should take a sniff of some reality

  • @habadashery2009 I don't think what you've been sniffing is called reality...well...maybe that's what you call it.

  • @Vindigary so your saying that its not in a companies best interest to have a workforce in order to have an exchange of money so that the company can get more money.

  • @habadashery2009 If a company could have robots do the work instead of humans, it would be financially advantageous. Robots don't need food, breaks, sleep, unions, the list goes on. You're talking about technology that doesn't exist. If you've ever built a house you shouldn't even be close to confused about this. There are many things that machines don't have the dexterity or intelligence to do yet.

  • @Vindigary it would only make short term profits, if no one is making money for labour they can not buy anything and thus money would be worthless, that is why machines haven't taken over all labour. Machines are capable of the intelligence required for all service industry jobs and are even capable of replicating, fixing, and improving themselves. This knowledge is held from the public becuase no one wants to work.

  • @habadashery2009 "This knowledge is held from the public becuase no one wants to work."

    Always with the mythical, unseen claims. BULLSHIT. Show me the patent #s

    Even so, while the KNOWLEDGE to build sophisticated machines may exist ( real ones, ones with patent #s ), the machines themselves still have to be built. And that costs MONEY ( or if you're a TZM idiot - resources ).

    Only an idiot would pay millions for a machine to replace a burger flipper at MacDonalds.

  • @habadashery2009 It's a great vision you have. I honestly like the idea, and I think technology is really cool. I think, one day, you're machine-serviced world will exist. I do think you're living a few hundred years in the future though. It's just not possible right now. To suggest that corporations are purposefully holding back technology as part of a grand, global scheme to keep power is really far-fetched.

  • @habadashery2009 You are a dipshit moron.

  • @UCSDEngineerDoctor Is that normal for people who think for themselves? Maybe I should be like you and believe everything Bill O'reily says.

  • Obama must watch this video.l

  • No Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairy, and NO Uncle Mikey!

  • Absolute, freakin' common sense.

  • Vote Ron Paul 2012 if you want to get rid of the income tax and inflation tax, if you work hard and want to keep the money that you earn.

  • It's amazing to me that the government-corporate complex has succeeded in making people believe that economics is complicated. 1+1=2. It always will, and you can't change it. Just like MIlton says, money ALWAYS comes from someone. There is no tooth fairy or santa clause to take care of us and bring us free stuff. Nothing is free. Money is just a symbol of your labor so it is the fruits of your labor. No one should have the right to steal the fruits of your labor, especially the government.

  • @Vindigary Sorry, anarchy would not work. Living in a society without contributing to the society through taxation is a pipe dream. Arguing for less taxes in areas is one thing arguing for no taxes is childish.

  • @AtheistDaddy You misunderstood my position. I am not an anarchist. The government can preform it's necessary functions without the income tax or inflation tax. It did so for the first 126 years of its existence. I should be more careful in explaining myself. I don't want to sound like an anarchist. I believe government is only a friend of the people as long as it's powers are severely limited. Otherwise, tyrants like George W. Bush and Barack Obama get too much power, and the people suffer..

  • @Vindigary Fair enough. I take a different position about government than you but it is good to know you value at least some government actions. We will, most likely, differ on how much.

  • @Vindigary "Nothing is free."

    ==

    Any proof in the history that you and Friedman's ideology(fairness) worked to boost the economy?

  • no, @3:50, what matters is what the employer can CONTROL. He's saying it makes no firfference if the employer is paying a ss tax or wage? Ok, so let's get rid of the tax...will the money go towrds the worker's wage. yeah, no. The employer will pay the least he has to.

    dumb, oversimplistic talk.

  • @cowboyx1970 "oversimplistic"? Economics is not complicated. It's addition and subtraction.

  • Friedman talks about his ideology, how things should work but rarely talks about what worked and what will work.

    What's his ideal time in the history that the economy was so booming because of no regulation, no tax, no social programs?

    How should the "Responsibility by the poor" boost the economy?

    Can someone explain to me?

  • @allgoo19 There have been few instances throughout history when an economy was truly free. A good example of a free market economy is a Grover Cleveland administration. There was a railroad bubble that had been propped up by the republicans during the Rutherford B. Hayes administration from 1877-81 and continued under James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. Cleveland took office in 1885 and did away with government regulation and spending on railroads.

  • @Vindigary "There have been few instances.."

    ==

    Were they followed by great success in economy?

    If so, let me have the articles by the page title, so I can find them with google easily.

  • @allgoo19 You can search THE WHITE HOUSE "Grover Cleveland" and PROFILES OF U.S. PRESIDENTS "Grover Cleveland - Domestic policy in the second term". Also research William H. McKinley and Calvin Coolidge. Then, contrast with Herbert Hoover, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson. You'll see a difference in the effect of these policies. The depression of 1893 only lasted 4 years. Cleveland's policies surely had something to do with that.

  • @allgoo19 Cleveland’s policies delayed a depression which occurred in 1893 when the railroad bubble burst as a result of then President Benjamin Harrison’s regulatory policies. Cleveland was elected in 1893 for a second term and the economy recovered by 1898. The economy strengthened further under President William McKinley who continued Cleveland’s anti-regulatory policies.

  • @allgoo19 Contrast the 1893 depression with 1929. The Calvin Coolidge administration was for small government and minimal regulation, and the country had one of the biggest economic booms in history as a result of his policies. Herbert Hoover was next. Hoover’s policies were the cause of the Great Depression. Hoover raised the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%, and government spending went from $2.9 billion to $4.7 billion in just 3 years.

  • @allgoo19 FDR’s New Deal contained many of Hoover’s policies and social programs. The result was that the Depression lasted 14 years.

  • @Vindigary "The result was that the Depression lasted 14 years."

    ==

    What year to what year?

  • @allgoo19 1929-1943. FUNDMASTERY BLOG "Great Depression, Unemployment and Recovery." Sorry, I'm an idiot. I didn't know that you can't write web addresses in these comment boxes. I figured it out now.

  • @Vindigary "1929-1943. FUNDMASTERY BLOG.."

    ==

    It's a blog? Blog is nothing more than someone's opinion.

    I didn't even get to see the page. Your key word led me to a wiki page "Great Depression"

    Google, "Great Depression Wiki" then scroll down to the graph. "Unemployment rate in the US 1910–1960"

    What year do you see the peak of unemployment?

  • @allgoo19 I'm done doing your research for you. If you don't want the information, don't ask for it. I'm not pretending to know everything. I've looked at many sites on the subject, and the consensus is that the Great Depression lasted until 1943. Google "Great Depression Facts" and try some web pages like "...Timeline, People, and Events..." or "Historical Facts about the Great Depression."

  • @Vindigary "I'm done doing your research for you."

    ==

    You mean "research" pick & choose your favorite blog? That's not how you research.

    What's your definition of "End of great depression"?

    Did you expect GD to end without recovering time?

    It's easy to answer. Are we really looking at the same graph?

    "What year do you see the peak of unemployment?"

  • @Vindigary "Great Depression lasted until 1943."

    ==

    How about if I make the question easier for you to answer?

    "Unemployment peaked in 1933."

    True or false?

  • @Vindigary You haven't even made a point yet in all this discussion. All you've done is criticize mine. I said, I don't know everything. If you have a point, please make it and present your evidence.

  • @Vindigary "I'm done doing your research for you.'

    ==

    You are not done answering my question yet.

    You don't know how to read a graph?

    "Unemployment peaked in 1933."

    True or false?

  • @allgoo19 True, unemployment peaked in 1933. Unemployment did not reach pre-depression levels until 1943. The peak of unemployment is the middle of a depression, not the end. I realize the reason you asked someone to "explain" to you this viewpoint is so that you could argue with someone to feel smart. The internet is full of information on this and other subjects, and you obviously have access to this information. I suggest you learn some more on this subject, and I will do the same.

  • @Vindigary " Unemployment did not reach pre-depression levels until 1943."

    ==

    So?

    Isn't it more important than what made it turn around? You know leaning from the past mistake?

    Tell me, what do you think made the economic free fall turn around?

    You need not only learning from the information but learning to think.

    Thinking is a series of self question & answer. If you make up your opinion by taking someone's opinion, you are not thinking like majority of so called libertarians.

  • @allgoo19 Thank you for the lecture, professor. I'm so happy you've shown me how to think. Please, tell me what else I should believe because , before I talked to you, I had no opinions of my own. Anyway, "what made it turn around" was the natural cycle of the free market, which was strangled by FDR (UCLA Newsroom. "FDR's policies prolonged the depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate").

  • @Vindigary "was the natural cycle of the free market, which was strangled by FDR.."

    ==

    Explain to me, what "natural cycle" really was and step by step how it lead the unemployment to stop going up.

    If you read it and understood it, you should be able to explain.

    If you can't, just like I said, you took the word for word without understanding it.

    So, go ahead.

  • @allgoo19 Do you want me to write a book for you? Did you read the article from UCLA? This article explains the concept of the natural business cycle, SEEKING ALPHA. "Central Bankers vs Natural Market Cycles in 2012". Early in our conversation, I referred you to the depression of 1893 and the results of Grover Cleveland policies in relation to it. I also asked you to compare it with the depression of 1929.

  • @allgoo19 So far, I've referred you to 7 specific sources on this subject and admonished you to research several administrations and their respective fiscal policies. I’ve presented information and coherent ideas to you. You are free to form your own opinion based on the information. The pomposity apparent in your questions has proven them to be born from a desire to antagonize rather than genuine curiosity. You must be a liberal (communist).

  • @Vindigary "I’ve presented information and coherent ideas to you."

    ==

    You are doing the wrong way.

    You present your opinion and back it up with the data.

    What you are doing is presenting someone else's opinion where you got YOUR opinion from.

    See the difference?

    Have I seen your OWN opinion that you can explain using your own words?

    I don't think I have.

    You came up here only to prove you have no brain to think.

  • @allgoo19 This conversation started because YOU ASKED for examples and explanations for why someone supports the ideas of Austrian economics. I have been more than generous in providing you with MY opinions and why I have them. You have denigrated my opinions by uttering condescending remarks designed to make yourself sound intelligent without having to say anything substantial, which doesn’t surprise me because that is the liberal (communist) disposition. (continued...)

  • @Vindigary "This conversation started because YOU ASKED for examples ."

    ==

    So I asked you what's "natural cycle" and how does it boost the economy.

    It's totally legitimate question to ask.

    What else Friedman believes in boosting the economy?

  • @Vindigary "This conversation started because YOU ASKED .."

    ==

    Hello?

    No reply?

    What's a natural cycle and how it encourages people to spend money when they are incomeless and running out of savings?

  • @allgoo19 You’ve proven yourself to be an extremely arrogant ignoramus. What you're doing is looking for the answer that supports YOUR opinion. You say I don't have an opinion because I disagree with yours, and when you tried to make me adopt your opinion it didn't work, so you arrogantly persist with illogical accusations, ignoring the information that I have provided. Either you're completely stupid or you're just messing with me. Anyway, I have nothing more to say to you.

  • @allgoo19 I've heard all the arguments in favor of keynesian theory, and I completely disagree with all of them. When you "prime the pump" you create bubbles, and when they burst, if you continue with keynesian thinking, you get runaway inflation, more bubbles, and more recessions. Any other questions you’d like me to answer?

  • @Vindigary "I've heard all the arguments in favor of keynesian theory.."

    ==

    Is this ever a part of our conversation?

    I think we are talking about examples of Austrian economic success you raised in the first place.

    My original question wasn't even asking you but to the general public.

    Since you answered it on your own, you have an obligation to prove it, isn't it right?

  • @Vindigary "True, unemployment peaked in 1933..."

    ==

    Google, "File:Gdp20-40.jpg"

    GDP negative growth bottomed in 1933. then start climbing.

    Why?

  • @Vindigary

    ==

    I don't reply to anything you send me in message.

  • 2:50 is this guy delusional?

  • @ultraverydeepfield Guess you have never run a business or are too dumb to follow logic. My money is on the latter.

  • @HereinLasVegas

    are you a kid? get off daddy's computer.

  • @ultraverydeepfield Perhaps you should follw you own advice.

  • Wow!

    This based on pure philosophical conjecture, or BULLSHIT in layman's terms!

    Friedman neglects to mention that taxes pay for things that, at the end of the day, are also good for business. In fact, taxes pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or unable to fund.

    ...but I guess if you're Friedman, you can't let facts get in the way of your philosophical posturing, false axioms, and flawed a priori assumptions.

  • @AugustoMilton You need to watch it again because I can tell from your post that you missed some of what he said or didn’t understand it.

  • Comment removed

  • who ever provided the subtitles if FUCKING STUPID!!!

  • @19MnMz gee, I just watched the whole thing and the only subtitle I saw was about the ideachannel. do you even know what a subtitle is, mr. brilliant?

  • I love paying my taxes.

  • Tell that to Mit Romney. He thinks Corporations are people.

  • so if we tax the employer less and tax the employee more, then the employer will pay the employee more to compensate them for this disparity? got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you!

  • I agree with most of the points, but i think a tax on corporations is needed because taxes on capital income for individuals are generally very low compared to those on labor.

  • @hxocxjo

    He have the second highest corporate tax in the world.

  • the obvious truth should not be so hard to understand, you would imagine.

  • I don't get how anyone could argue this.

  • @MetalDemonful - Because it doesn't "FEEL" good and we "OWE" people who can't or won't take care of themselves. You are also racist, misogynistic, xenophobic and greedy if you don't want to share what you earned with everyone else who wants something free. That's the only argument you will hear from libs who have no rational comeback.

  • @Notoriousdsb next time you have to argue with a liberal, ask them how a "market order" helps the poor.

  • @halloranedward - I will settle for a liberal who can explain how some can pay for something and some can just take and it won't drain the overall supply.

  • @MetalDemonful Milton is one of the greatest debaters ever.

  • Obama and dems everywhere should watch these videos. Then they'd maybe get off their high horses

  • and now that we've had more than 40 years of this and look where we are, the extremely wealthy have the controlling power in the government, the poor in this country are getting poorer and the middle class is disappearing, and if you happen to point this out you get called STALIN. This ideology in this video DOESN'T need any further reinforcement now that we have a recession that was fixed before by providing social programs, but Americans HATE reading and understanding history.

  • @DoneWithDogma Not even worth the breath...or carpal tunnel i guess.

  • @DoneWithDogma And just FYI, KEYNESIANISM is dead and this ideology will dominate western society soon enough. Got it STALIN

  • @aem945532 is this troll hour or what? why can't you creeps get a life?

  • @DoneWithDogma No, its Minotaur minute. I would explain why Milton is right, but Milton does a better job than I could ever do. So, if you watched his videos, and still don't understand, you fail.

  • @aem945532 well there's a better way to hold down a position than a childish representation of your miniscule comprehension of the subject that you are attempting to discuss.

  • @DoneWithDogma I have a degree in business economics from a very reputable university. I've also managed my portfolio from an Austrian perspective. And guess what. It worked. Oh, and FYI, I've been working since I was 13yrs old, paid for my own schooling, while taking care of my parents and brother. And I did it all without govt assistance and now I pay exorbitant taxes so others don't have to do the same.

  • @aem945532 well you should definitely try to present yourself a bit better, try to not come off like a little twat next time. Not sure why you even labelled me as a Keynesian in the first place.

  • @DoneWithDogma You want a position? The free market has done more to improve the lot of the average, working man than any government policy. Government policy is primarily directed by special interests and is inherently corrupt and promotes the welfare of said interests. Freedom is by far the most important of all values and any act that violates an individuals liberty to act in his own interest without infringing upon another's right to do the same is immoral.

  • @DoneWithDogma The argument that the government can somehow do good with other people's money fails upon application of basic logic theory. You must first take the individuals property by force or threat thereof; as such, the very genesis of a transfer of wealth is violence. Violence is wrong and there exists no reason that government should be omitted from this conclusion. So, even if we found the most divine, intelligent angel to run our society, that status would disappear as soon as he stole

  • @DoneWithDogma Enough on theoretical platform. Lets get consequential. You probably believe that people like Paul Krugman (who i've studied under) or Farmer (who i've been published under) are being honest when they say that the middle class is a product of state intervention in the economy (new deal propaganda). Well, they are lying. this has been proven. The new deal misallocated resources and created a false economy that would had imploded soon thereafter had that fool FDR not died.

  • @DoneWithDogma More consequential. Closer to home. How about the recent housing market collapse? The utilization of government sponsored enterprises in the housing sector fueled the housing boom by extending credit based on artificial lending standards. All because you socialists though "everyone should have a house". Even if they cant PAY for the goddamn house. You people have such a miniscule understanding of economics. The study of choices and how people make decisions based on incentives.

  • @DoneWithDogma People are not machines. The economy is organic. So put down the fucking wrenches and screwdrivers and step away from the free, natural market. Bastiat, Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, Murphy, Woods, Paul, Schiff. All names you should google for more enlightenment. I'm done with you. If these men can't yank your head from the sand, your doomed.

  • @aem945532 sorry, I'm not inclined to read YT essays at the moment.

  • I wonder what he would say to the biggest tax we have? The tax that miners apply to all business and individuals due to the fact that they steal our resources to sell them back to us. We could have good socialism and some of the better elements of free market if the people claim their birth right.

  • What a load of crap, this whole obsession of the Americans with corporations is ridiculous. They believe that somehow these big corporations will not be greedy, will not pollute their land, will no steal and that we should just trust them ! I believe that the big factories should be run by the government and the free market should only apply for small or medium businesses ! It's is just plain stupid to trust big corporations to just a handful of men !!!!

  • @hafizbinhussam Not that I necessarily disagree with your objections to placing the power in the hands of the very few, I disagree that fascism is the way to solve the problem. Are elected officials more trustworthy than corporations?

  • @hafizbinhussam Go to Mises(dot)org. And wakeup

  • @hafizbinhussam The collusion between corporations and government is fascism. Which is not Hayekian, Austrian or Libertarian in any way, shape or form.

  • Who ever said that ANYONE had the ability to spend without actually having revenue. Are you guys really deluded enough to believe anyone has ever made such an argument?

  • @Dolloozze I would make the argument that politicians routinely abuse such an ability.

  • @fzqlcs So you think they actually have this ability?

  • @Dolloozze I think there are more than 15 trillion bits of evidence regarding this.

  • @fzqlcs And who printed that money? (x

  • @Dolloozze It was politicians who created and authorized a device for legal counterfeiting called the Federal Reserve. The politicians called in the bankers in order to give themselves the means to spend without actually having revenue.

  • @DavidByrne85 (1) Alas not a myth in Greece, Spain, France...

    (2) In your initial remark think small business, start-up, venture capital, inception of new industrial activities. You will see "it works". Regarding productivity, the last 30 years record gains occurred in the USA with relative little interference of the state. The opposite in China: strong state interference increased productivity. Productivity increase, nature of growth are "different" in these 2 countries.

  • More myths:

    1) That money government taxes disappears down a sinkhole.

    2) That if the richest individuals & companies keep their money they'll invest it most productively - or more productively than government (especially unlikely in the age of floating shareholders). No country ever increased it's long term productivity without large state 'interference'.

    3) That 'people' are a group separate from govt. yet cohesive in themselves. Craig Blankfien & Gerry Banks down the road are 'people'?

  • If Friedman had his way there would be no sovereign governments and corporations/banks would have their way with the peasant consumer population of the world.

  • @ImperialLegionTV Disagree, its just the opposite. Corporations and banks have their way with the "peasant consumer" now as a direct result of their political cronies in government. Open your eyes man!

  • @fzqlcs

    Dude what are you talking about? The "political cronies" in government have no power over anything or anyone anymore. All they can do is legislate laws and taxation that in the end is all controlled and manipulated by the international commercial banks and the national central banks anyways.

    Just as warfare is the extension of politics by other means, politics is the extension of economics by other means. And who is in control of the economy? The banks.

  • There is a free lunch. Business proved that to us at during and after the Bush administration.

  • @Ilicium Unfortunately, the Bush and now the Obama administrations.

  • @woodchucko Yes, both. Most of this was done before Obama took office.

  • @Ilicium It ain't free bro. We are going to have to pay this back, completely...and in spades. Our grandkids are still going to be paying for their "free lunch". So there isn't anything free about it.

  • @theothertoolbox Not necessarily. It's fiat money, remember?

  • @Ilicium The money changers still want their pound of flesh.

  • @theothertoolbox I agree it ain't free but not that our grandkids will pay, we will. It's our social security and medicare that will be cut. And our taxes that will be going up. When Reagan was in office they said deficits would be a problem in 30 years. I was in junior high then 30 years seemed a long way off.

  • If this man had been a President we wouldn't be drawing towards a socialist police state right now...

  • Ron Paul/Milton Friedman 2012!!!

  • @TK572

    This guy had to wear diapers, lol.

  • @TK572

    paul's a nutcase

  • @rddaos Back that statement up with logic and intelligence, if you can.

  • @TK572

    Ron Paul: we shouldn't kill terrorist muslims on sight, we should give them food and free lawyers and ask them if they are american citizens... oh yeah, and it's cool if iran gets nuclear weapons

    fruitcake

    fruitcake

    fruitcake

  • @rddaos Who determines someone is a terrorist? What if you spoke out against the government and were deemed a terrorist? No Trial? No rights? Put you in prison forever?. Wake up.

  • @HandyMan101

    yeah yea "what if". what IF a cop saw you fail to use your turn signal then shot you dead? Does that mean we shouldnt have police? coz "what if"?? Paul's a fruitcake

  • @rddaos I said logic and intelligence, not racism and stupidity. Dr. Paul voted to hunt down the scoundrel Osama Bin Laden, and American citizens deserve constitutional rights, even the despicable ones. There is no point in having a constitution which protects citizens from government abuse if those protections can be effortlessly wiped aside by that same government. And if Iran gets a Nuclear weapon, Israel has hundreds, and can turn that backwater into glass in a heartbeat if needed.

  • @TK572

    I disagree that american islamo-terrorists deserve food and free lawyers, they only deserve to be hunted down and killed on sight. and sane people know the time to deal with iran is BEFORE iran starts a nuclear war, not after. ron paul is just crazy

  • @rddaos And how would you know that a suspected terrorist is actually a terrorist and not an innocent person? Killing people on suspicion alone is insanity, and makes us no different than the dictatorships we condemn. If they are truly guilty of terrorism, than they will of been found guilty of treason against their country, and be sentenced to death according to legal precedent. Israel is more than capable of eliminating a shoddily built Iranian nuke before it even leaves Iran too.

  • @TK572

    "how would you know that a suspected terrorist is actually a terrorist"

    Same way a cop knows to shoot a criminal who aims a gun at him, he uses common sense, not wait for a trial to defend himself. If an american is making jihad videos from Yemen, that's a pretty good sign he's a terrorist and should have his nuts blown off with no questions asked. russians were atheists, iran is islamo-fanatic, no comparison there

  • @rddaos So you would have American citizens killed for saying bad things? A system like that inevitably leads to Stalin-like purges where those who disagree with the government are subjected to genocide. Just because these people are making videos, doesn't mean they strap bombs to themselves afterwords. Cops shoot people when there is an IMMEDIATE threat to their lives, not because they are Judge Dread. Iran is not a legitimate threat either, especially to Israel and the Unite States.

  • @TK572

    did i not make myself clear? anybody making islamoterrorist propaganda videos should be hunted down and killed, simple as that. listen, we have a philosophical disagreement, i think islamoterrorists should be killed, and u think they should be given free food and free lawyers. after 911, we have every right to defend ourselves

  • @rddaos I want to give them the rights they are entitled to as American citizens. There are reasons for giving everyone legal counsel, and rest assured that if they truly are guilty, than they will die, just as all terrorists should. Speech, however, is not a crime. We always have a right to defend ourselves, but first remember that we defend our freedoms and liberty above all else. That's what sets us apart in the world. Giving up the Bill of Rights is "killing the patient to save him".

  • @TK572

    we dont let terrorists kill us in order to feel good about giving terrorist scum free lawyers. terrorists are meant to be killed on site, no questions asked. you're weak and have no will to fight. terrorists know that

  • @rddaos It's rather amusing how you are quick to insult somebody you have not met. I don't call you names, so be an adult and extend the same courtesy to me. Those who know me never call me weak. Just because someone doesn't desire conflict and death, doesn't mean that they stray from it when it's required. I never said that terrorists don't deserve to die, quite the contrary actually. I simply expressed, and backed up, the belief that the 6th Amendment must apply to all U.S citizens.

  • @TK572

    the difference between you and i is that when a rapist shows up at your house and slaps your mother around and cums in her, you afford the rapist all his 6th ammendment privileges. you give him food and free lawyers. i, on the other hand, shoot the rapist dead before he can make it up my driveway

  • @rddaos I have been civil to you and done my best to present my beliefs with intelligence and as a gentleman, despite the fact that I've no reason to do so. I challenged you to back your statements up with logic and intelligence, and you have most assuredly failed miserably in this endeavor. I've better things to do with my time.

  • @TK572 Yeah that guy is a complete fucking moron. It would be funny if someone reported him as one. Since he is against having any trial once labeled a terrorist. I guess he would not want his mom to have a trail if she was labeled one. After all if the government says its true, I guess he believes it.

  • @TheGeneralOfWar

    slap MY mother and cum in her?? wow, that's kinda kinky. by your logic, u'd sit there like a little pussy and watch some guy split your mother's pussy open with his knife and wouldnt do anything except call him a lawyer and threaten to put him on "trial" to prove he was really guilty, ...coz what IF he was really innocent lolz

    -owned

  • @TK572

    Ok, a less inflammatory analogy. The difference between you and me is that you care more about the 6th ammendment rights of an axe wielding psychopath coming at you than you care about living, and I care more about killing the axe wielding psycho immediately so he cannot kill me or anyone else than I care about his fucking 6th ammendment rights.

  • @rddaos I can assure you that if someone was to come at me angrily with an axe, I would shoot them before they got a chance to swing it. The issue is not whether you or I would kill without giving due process. The issue is whether it should be the policy of government to kill without due process. The analogy doesn't apply to the issue either, as your analogy talks about an immediate danger to an individual, and the issue addresses government killing on a whim.

  • @TK572

    Yes, either terrorists surrender immediately, or get a missile through the window, given they pose an immediate danger. imagine you're in charge of the U.S. military in 1939. You announce to nazi germany we're going to arrest their army and give them lawyers. i, on the other hand, wipe out all nazi forces that do not come forward waving the white flag. and nazis deserve more rights than islamoterrorists.

  • @rddaos We went to war with Nazi Germany because we had to. The Axis Powers attacked us, we naturally went to war to defend ourselves, won, than put the leaders on trial for their criminal actions. WWII and the Middle Eastern Campaigns are nothing alike. The first, involved a country with a large, legitimate, well trained and fully equipped standing army led by competent generals. The second, a long term occupation and nation building project where we fight rag-tag suicide bombers.

  • @rddaos Don't let yourself be manipulated and driven to extremes so easily. You seem to fear the terrorists when you shouldn't. In all of our years opposing them, you could count the successful attacks on our country on a single hand. Other countries which have not thrown rights out the window haven't fared any worse than us. Groups like Al-Qaeda are miserable failures in most areas except opiate dealing, which makes them a fortune. The only group harmed by a lack of rights is the people

  • @TK572

    i dont fear islamoterrorists, i just love seeing them get squashed. isn't that what u r supposed to do with mosquitos, squash them? you dont give the mosquito a lawyer. 

  • @rddaos You assume that a lawyer is a get out of jail free card, and that a terrorist will be saved from death simply because they have legal counsel. If this were the case, lawyers would make even more money than they do now lol. If you like seeing them get squashed, than capture them, embarrass them on an international scale by putting them through a public trial, and watch them receive the inevitable death penalty. You'll see the execution video all you want via YouTube.