Breitbart has a lot of guts to slam the "mainstream media" for hypocrisy and a News anchor for Glenn Beck 's "real News"?? Is anything about Beck that is real except in his own head???
~~> If everybody knew, why didn't FOX report it?? Newt, makes claims of family values too... I think he is self serving & afraid of commitment if you ask me... Newt won in SC because it is an open primary, meaning dems could vote too... The dems voted for Newt for a reason...
Yes but we expect lefties to cheat on their wives. It's the fake family values fucks that really deserve to be skewered. Anyway, CNN perfectly set the salamander up to help quash this, so why complain?
If it's Romney,Gingrich, or Santorum our next president will be Barack Obama. Ron Paul is the neocons only chance of gaining the White House. Please choose wisely.
i don't know if it's planned or not but republicans ensured the defeat in the presidential election by winning the house. they lost the free ride of bitching and moaning when they were forced to show some responsibility.
@ufster81 oh ur still talking fanboy language. they r all the same. its a play. if it werent 4 knowing about Paul before all of this Id think the same about him. Otherwise its all shit. They r all criminals playing to two typs of people.
Gingrich preaches of strong conservative "family values". He wants to use the government to enforce those personal values as law unto others. If you're going to preach you'd better have your affairs in order to be a model for the bullshit you're slinging otherwise speak only of the truths you know. Crying about LBGT's trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage while simultaneously destroying the heterosexual sanctity of marriage reflects poorly on your intellect and character as a man.
Funny! What a DOUBLE STANDARD! 20 years ago, the Repukes were up Bill & Hillary Clinton's asses about every little tart Clinton messed with. AND HE'S STILL MARRIED to Hillary.
Newt has affairs, multiple wives, ... but he's a repuke, so it's okay.
The people of South Carolina proved they were typical hypocritical Christians, not that they were anti-media.
If they were going to prove they were anti-media, they would have voted for Ron Paul. They simply proved their ignorance and idiocy, nothing more. South Carolina proved to be a complete joke, even worse than Iowa.
@chronDiggity Southerners are just a little more violent than your typical American. Despite Paul's views on states' rights or what not, he just ain't bloodthirsty enough for the Southerners. The irony considering how good libertarians have been to the CSA and the glorious traditions of Dixie. What gratitude? But what can you expect from a bunch of rednecks and klansmen?
@threefiveZ Ron Paul said the same words prime minister netanyahu of Israel said verbatim. So are u telling me even the prime minister of Israel is crazy for saying they can defend their own self. Do you really think spending money to take care of other countries make the USA safer lol that's like saying imma pay your bills and the electric company going to leave my lights on because I'm.helping you out. Dogg you are crazy as they come
@kingpin30314 You are aware that an Israeli PAC has been created to destroy Paul's reputation? So much for that point. And when did I ever say anything about whether or not aid to Israel was justified? I merely stated that what you called the MSM is actually owned and operated largely by Jews who don't appreciate Paul lack luster support of their colony. Hell even Murdoch is onboard with this. You are a presumptuous idiot: pure and simple, and you have the nerve to call me crazy.
"After your period. To clear out vaginal secretions/poop. Whenever you want to feel clean and brainwashed. How to Douche: Gently insert microphone into your vagina/mangina, no more than 3 inches (think O'Reilly, Hannity or Rush), and slowly squeeze and rant. Do not close the anal opening; douching solution should flow freely out of the hole. Use while sitting on the toilet, or sitting at a newsdesk."
Yeah, couldn't be the fact that Gingrich is a massive hypocrite. Normally I don't care about someone's personal life, but when a guy sits on a panel and impeaches someone for infidelity, and preaches against it, while engaging in infidelity himself. . .
@robstuk1 Why? When I could watch MOXnews? You know I really hated what that asshole, PhilosopherGod or whatever that queer's moniker was, did. It just not the same without the FOX clips. Wow, I just realized the irony of your point considering this channel shows CNN and until recently showed FOX as well. Come on, guy. Give it some effort.
Trust me, if Fox "News" knew about his affair they would have led with that at every hour and spent an entire week with Bill O'really running his foul mouth about it. Andrew is not only a bold faced liar, but an asshole to boot.
@threefiveZ look I really thought you was just playing but I really see now you are brainwashed by the MSM. Now imma democrat but I know the stuff Ron Paul is saying is true. That's why they(MSM) hate him so much because his plan takes money out of the mainstream pocket because these people are sold off and the fed has them in there back pocket
@kingpin30314 You know what I relish in? The irony of being accused of being brainwashed or a zombie by a group of people who parrot the exact same shit...even about being brainwashed. You are the reason I wake up every morning. Paul's position about Israel is why the so-called MSM gives him the cold shoulder, not the FED. To the average American, things like competing currencies is a kooky idea.
President Obama saved the country from a great depression. He is the most decent and moral person in this race any weakness or perceived weakness is only his natural instinct to compromise and to see value in all political arguments.God bless President Obama and 4 more years!!!
@bigcomcast President Obama prolonged recessions which would have ended in 12 months. Now we have it in the 5th year and counting. Just look at recession of 1921 which was finished in 18 months, and compare with Hoover/FDR Great Depression. Bush/Obama did exactly the same - bailout and prolonging of the depression. I have my reservations about Obama decency but in any case he is destroying the country economically and morally. He is Bush 3rd tern indeed - absolutely no changes from W.
@rtcell The president is the classiest guy in the race.He saved the auto industry in America and helped GM bring home the title of top car company.His morals are impeccable compared to people like Gingrich and Romney. And he got Bin Laden and ended the war in Iraq.You owe the president your gratitude for keeping you safe and prosperous
@bigcomcast Yes. Obama is the classiest guy in the race. And anyone has impeccable morale compared to Newt. But Obama did not save any industry, nor did he end any war... I keep *myself* prosperous (hard to do after taxes), and he makes me less safe. I am sure you deeply care for the country but I am sorry you think the "saving" and "keeping save" is anything but brainwashing - it just shows full lack of understanding of economics and geopolitics. No room in youtube to explain more
Newt is a Rockefeller Republican. Dude is lying at the end.
"There is almost a new synthesis evolving with the classic moderate wing of the party, where, as a former Rockefeller state chairman, I’ve spent most of my life, and the conservative/activist right wing" -Newt Gingrich
@threefiveZ Ron Paul top three contributors are the Army,Navy and Air force. And he's saying "end the fed" do you even know what the federal reserve bank is. One its not Federal nor is it a Reserve. It's a privately owned bank that got us in this mess since 1913 when it was open they stole 7.77 trillion dollars since 2008 to now. They send us to war because they get paid for it that's why they play this terrorist line because it put ppl in fear and they will do anything
@kingpin30314 Sure thing, but if I had the logic of the average Ron Paul supporter, I would have to say that those donations were bogus and it is just part of a conspiracy to make Ron Paul look good. I understand what the Federal Reserve is. Why do you think the only solution to the Reserve is the libertarian one of abolishing it and replacing it with competing currencies? My problem with libertarians is they are uncompromising extremists just like Marxists.
@threefiveZ : hate to jump in, but I don't think you understand what the Fed does and why libertarians as well as progressives like Huey Long (and Alan Grayson) have distrusted the Fed and have been speaking out against the Fed.
Firstly, why would you exactly want to give so much monopolistic power to unelected few technocrats (though they are appointed by POTUS for as long as 14) and shielded it from check-and-balance that applies to all sector of our gov't?
@tooltalk It is true that both libertarians and liberals alike dislike the FED. And it is equally true that they both have different solutions to it. I don't support the FED, but I don't support the libertarian solution either. I would nationalize it and seize the resources from those "technocrats".
@myhipsi I have heard of the so-called beauty of libertarian society, and in artistic form, I would have to say Bioshock captured it quite well. See the problem with me is I have this epistemology called empiricism. I do not accept the fallacy of tradition excuse as to why a libertarian dystopia has never existed. I just think you guys have human nature all wrong.
You seem to be mistaking libertarianism for anarchism. A true libertarian society depends greatly on adherence to the rule of law. The right to life, liberty, and property. You need a federal government to perform the basic functions of national defence, protection of life/liberty, and enforcement of contracts through a judicial system. The states take care of the rest, but the state cannot trump basic constitutional rights.
@myhipsi I think libertarianism can be divided into two camps: anchrocapitalism and minarchism. Only in minarchism does something that we can understand as a government exist, and even then only as law enforcement and military. Libertarians can have different religious perspectives as well that will influence views on abortion and what not. But in all its forms, it is rational philosophy based on certain erroneous axioms. Human beings are violent, tribal animals.
@threefiveZ The point about Libertarianism and Utilitarianism is that it CONCEDES that man is violent and manipulative, so it aims to set up institutions that offset this BUT it also acknowledges that men will will try and subvert such a government for their own incentives, so in Milton Friedman's terminology, Consequentialist Libertarianism aims for the smallest Government that yields the maximum in personal liberty.
@threefiveZ I never mentioned nationality... I was responding to your claims: " But in all its forms, it is rational philosophy based on certain erroneous axioms"... I see nothing "erroneous" about political assertions Libertarians put forward. And your claim that they don't concede that human beings have violent tendencies is not true.
@dmg46664 Do you think nationality is a naturally occurring phenomena or do you think it is a trick that ruling elites play on the vulgar rabble? Perhaps a little of both? You misunderstood me, and I was attempting to clarify myself. It is the tribal part of that nature that I think libertarians get wrong. I had to state the adjective 'violent' because it is equally true and necessary to understand the human being. Do you care to tell me now?
@threefiveZ I think that nationality isn't naturally occuring. Its simply the most convenient grounds for setting up common arrangements either on racial/cultural/previous legal/language or under some ruler which is convenient. How does that impact the Libertarian assertion that within the area/people of common arrangement, the arrangement that maximizes freedom will yield the best results? I suspect you're trying to differentiate John Locke's notion of consent vs liberty. Still not following u.
@dmg46664 Well, I will have to disagree. The human animal is a social animal, and because of this, is endowed with an instinct for the tribe. I agree with your "grounds", but I think you fail to understand what drives people to settle for such grounds. Add this instinct for a tribe with a violent nature and you have a legitimate explanation for war and its purpose in history. War is another thing I think libertarians get wrong. Do you think war can ever be profitable?
@threefiveZ I've never disagreed that their is an instinct of tribe and loyalty. What I disagree is that the tribe is constructed on ARBITRARY grounds. I accept that war can be the result of inter-tribal feuds especially over resources. But you HAVEN'T explained how this conflicts with Libertarianism. Libertarianism accepts that conflicts will exist with others who are not Libertarian and where there is uncertainty over property rights. And now you go off on a tangent "is war profitable?".
@dmg46664 It has been my experience with libertarians that they oppose war because they feel that it always and absolutely destroys wealth. The fact of the matter is war doesn't always do this. Libertarians think they have political stances that are based on empirical fact like war never creates wealth but in fact it is merely a moral preference. That is what that tangent is about.
@threefiveZ Specifically, to clarify, I believe there is a human instinct to form tribes. What I disagree with, is that a PARTICULAR tribe is naturally occuring. i.e. there will always be a particular tribe around dna/geography/language etc. Humans have evolved to pick whichever characteristic they find most convenient. Also, understand I'm a Utilitarian, not a Libertarian. But on the issue you've raised, I don't see how you even put a dent in the Libertarian argument. So playing devils advocate
@dmg46664 My experience with political theory is that it rests upon some understanding of human nature. To be wrong about political theory especially on a macro level of general theory is to be wrong about that nature. To not use war EVER to expand the resources of the tribe is to weaken the tribe while the tribes that do will profit. Now I am not going say it is unnatural (and maybe I should retract my initial statement), but lets say that Mother Nature has a way of dealing with weakness.
@threefiveZ Second. Political&Economic theory should NOT be based on how you think human nature works (Praxeology in Austrian terms), but rather on Scientific Empirics. This is what is referred to as the Normative/Positive distinction. tinyurl(.)com/8b7vc Because you make claims about human nature you then deduce what OUGHT to happen, rather than what DOES happen. I.e. because human nature is violent, people OUGHT to go to war to increase their land. Rather, look at what history says.
@dmg46664 How I think human nature works? Scientific Empirics? What? Empiricism is my epistemology. My claims about human nature are from empirical observation. What does happen is people do form tribal groups and compete over resources sometimes violently. This isn't what OUGHT to be, this is what IS! My REAL political views or what is left of them have nothing to with what I call my anthropology. In fact, I was the first utopian I trolled.
@threefiveZ I understand that your human nature claims are empirical... I don't dispute that. I dispute that claims about the benefits of the outcomes of war are deduceable from human nature first principals. Also simply identifying that humans have a violent bent doesn't trump other theories of benevolent and rational human nature. You haven't produced a verified model which squares these and so your deductions are suspect. Hence the reason I site normate/positive distinction.
@dmg46664 Unfortunately in my anthropology war is an integral, inescapable part of the human condition. It appears to be a driving force in our evolution. War, itself, has contributed much to the development of technology. Humans are complex animals. I can not deny the "good" in them. Human do have an instinct to cooperate, but in my view, they will always form these competitive tribes. They will always war. Babel will always fall. Understand, I wish it weren't so.
@threefiveZ Actually, you're empirically incorrect! Human beings have been escaping war/conflict and violence consistently over the last 10000 years. Here's the data...
@dmg46664 Well played. Good video. On one hand, it made me think about Hegel and Marx. The idea of mankind progressing to a better tomorrow due to the very mechanics of history itself. On the other, it made me think of Nietzsche as he denounces the last men for his overman. Either way, touche...touche.
@threefiveZ Which video? The Economic Freedom? Or the other one posted on the History of Violence? Anyways, I think that you should be careful before making assumptions about Libertarians (which can be broken down into the Rand/Austrian/Friedmanite variety) and also about normative athropological claims. Let's leave it there. Good night!! Do yourself a favour and watch Free to Choose tinyurl(.)com/7hvc8pg
@dmg46664 The history of violence. I thought that was evident by what I said. It is not the smoking gun you think it was but it certainly caused me to rethink some things. Why should I be careful? See the thing is unlike most of these nerds on here, I don't care if I am wrong. In fact, I invite the opportunity to be proven so. Now am I done with my little lambs, not hardly, but the methodology utilized in this thread will either be modified or completely discarded.
@threefiveZ Well, I wish you the best of luck. By "careful", I meant of your assumptions. Learning to think critically requires practise.. You were sloppy, and sloppiness breads more sloppiness. It's all fine and well to invite others to point out your flaws, but it is MUCH better for one to learn to be self-critical. That's what I meant by careful. Again, good luck.
@dmg46664 One more thought, please do not invoke empiricism to argue a position that has never materialized in physical reality. There has never been a libertarian society. Arguing for its existence is as bold of a claim as arguing for the possibility of time travel. I will believe it when I see it. Until then, it is just science fiction like John Galt or Rapture.
@threefiveZ I'm not a Libertarian! So don't assume that I make claims about a Utopian Libertarian society. I find Ayn Rand very Utopian... but I find Milton Friedman's school of Libertarianism much more agreeable. Moreover, it isnt an all or nothing picture and he provides empirics to suggest that the more free a society the better it's prosperity. That trend is noisy but statistically correlated & empirically correct.
@dmg46664 I am sorry I didn't to be crass. I remember that you are merely playing the devil's advocate. But you are correct and I must concede the point, a real critique would require a more suitable forum and much more of my time than I already have devoted.
@threefiveZ tinyurl(.)com/4x5kyw7 This is the data I'm talking about. You can find more at the heritage.org/index/ Also watch Milton Friedman's series Free to Choose, the 1980's series.
@threefiveZ So regarding war to increase prosperity... there have been examples in history, but they are not easy to think of except when indigenous ppl were wiped out. It was more costly to extend the British empire than ANY amount of money it got back from the colonies. Compare that to Jefferson's Louisiana purchase which doubled the size of the USA with only a financial cost.(and Alaska purchase). Look at the USA's recent track record, few instigated wars in last 100 years were worth it.
Human beings CAN be violent, tribal animals. It is certainly in our DNA, but so is the tendency for co-operation and mutually beneficial relationships.
You say the problem with libertarians is that they assume human nature is moral and just. But the problem with statists and authoritarians is that they assume human nature is cruel and unjust. The fact is that we are all these things and everything in between. That's why a rule of law is so important. Liberty works with rules.
@myhipsi I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment here. I think when you look at a libertarian's view of war, it comes more into perspective. It is one thing to argue that unprovoked war is unjust, quite another to argue that war can never be profitable. I am surprised by the moral absolutism of it at times. There is a reason that nothing like a libertarian utopia has ever existed despite the fact that democracies and republics are old.
Yes, and I think the reason for this is likely due to the nature of a central government and it's tendency to grow and accumulate more power. That is the Achilles heal, so to speak, of the libertarian system, that it needs a "limited" central authority in order to work. To quote Thomas Paine, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." This is my reasoning as to why a libertarian "utopia" is difficult to achieve.
@myhipsi Well it is one thing to have a preference and quite another to state something unequivocally. There are other example besides war that libertarians view through this prism of absolutism. A liberal can understand that war can be profitable and still argue against it, but a libertarian seems to me to require being convinced that it can never be so to oppose it. This is what I am actually curious about. I would love to hear your reasoning on this.
@threefiveZ : eh? what's up with liberals solution of too-big/important-to-fail / if we leave, there'd be chaos, so let's bailout/subsidize/nationalize everything?
What's the point of "nationalizing" the Fed when printing (coining) money is already a legitimate function and responsibility of congress? And what "resources"? You mean their holding of the US treasury or magical money-printing machines?
@tooltalk "Liberal"...huh? You got a lot of nerve using that word and in that erroneous context. I guess the GOP is liberal by your standards...huh? If that be the case, I reject whatever definition you have for conservatism.
I don't have a problem with fiat money. I have a problem with the printing of it being done by private hands. I am sure in a truly libertarian society all money would printed so. Gold isn't money. Food and guns are more valuable than so-called precious metal.
@threefiveZ : Of course, it is. Neoconservatism is a form of warfare/welfare liberalism started by communists - trotskyies to be precise. Back in the 50's and 60's they were lumped up with other cold-war liberals. Paul is more along the line of Taft-wing paleocon.
Now, you are getting ahead already throwing kitchen sink. The issue here isn't so much that money printing itself is bad, but that no single private inst or gov't is wise or neutral enough not to abuse its power to print money.
@tooltalk I am so sick of that term. To me, Neoconservatism is a word that conservatives use to alleviate themselves of moral responsibility much like the Tea Party which was the Bush constituency trying to distance themselves from the disaster of that administration and looking for any scapegoat they could find. The issue with a real conservative isn't government or no government. It is what government and why. Paul is not a conservative. IMHO, he is a minarchist libertarian.
@threefiveZ : looks like everyone has their own spin on neocns, but conservatives don't use the term neocons to describe their own political ideas or policies. In fact, the term was coined by socialists in early 70's to ridicule a sect of cold-war liberals critical of LBJ's Great Society / welfare policies - and who correctly foresaw the destructive social / economic consequences of the delusional liberal revolution in the 60's.
@tooltalk Name a "neocon". Name one of these cold war liberals (and please name one that isn't Jewish). I have actually heard narratives similar to this one to describe the so-called origin of the "neocon". I have a sneaky suspicion that what you mean by "neocon" is a conservative who supports the Long War which, at the beginning of it, was damn near all of them. Conservatives love government. They love to use it for social engineering.
As for your "sneaky" suspicion, well, not quite. Back in the days, both cold-war, dovish big gov't libs were for permanent wars. The former group held internationalist liberal views promoting military aggression/intervention, so big gov't was necessary, while the latter had blind faith in big gov't and their ability to keep people duly employed in gov't / war industries. This is what irked Ike; and consequently his warning against the MIC.
@threefiveZ : Not surprisingly, neocons belong to the former group (fervent anti-Stalinist - Trotsky was eventually ax'ed to death in Mexico), but they were also believers of big gov't - in fact, leading social critics/proponents of LBJ's social engineering (hope that answers your comment about present day cons' loving social engineering).
@threefiveZ : what's so "conservative" about the war on drugs? it was started by one of the most liberal president in modern US history and whose expansive social / economic policies ("we are all Keynesians now") admired by the lefties like Krugman and Chomsky - who called him the "last progressive president." It's also worth noting though that the war on drug in its original form in the 70's was more geared towards rehabilitating drug addicts, than punishing them (after 80's).
@tooltalk You mean Richard Nixon: godfather of the Southern Strategy...the same political tactics that Paul ineffectively and inefficiently employs? Punishing after the 80's...huh? You mean after Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign? So two liberals incognito, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, started the drug war? Wow...what a pathetic way not to take responsibility for what has been done! That is right!!! The War on Drug is the creation of HIPPIES: AN EVIL LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!! LOL!!!
@threefiveZ : ROFL!! I haven't said anything about the war on drugs after 80's, but I see where you are heading - time to cover your ass now. LOL!!!
Yep, I perfectly understand your anger and disappointment. It just sucks when historical facts never fit liberal' narratives, doesn't it? I have to say it's always fun watching libtards squirming when the truth about themselves are exposed.
@tooltalk Richard Nixon was after the 80's? You do realize that he started the War on Drugs principally in response to Supreme Court's decision regarding Timothy Leary suing over the Marijuana Tax Act? Time to cover whose ass now? Your "conservativism" if it ever existed is now DOA after the Southern Strategy (which also started before the 80's). I know history quite well. I have just never seen such an obvious shuck and jive before.
@threefiveZ : ROFL!!! Sherlock, did you just figure that out from watching the Family Guys? Wow, you must be the smartest kid in your entire 3rd grade. LOL!!
ROFL!! So let me guess, the dude FDR who passe the original Marijuana Act in 1937 must also be a raging conservative! I already warned you, Libtards != History don't mix!!
LOL!!
Honey, the original bill enacted by FDR back in the 30's were largely influenced by the lumber/paper corporate interest, Hearst being one of the notable ones
@tooltalk WTF are you talking about? Family Guy? What??? Your argument rests upon antiquated definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that are null and void after the collapse of the racial caste system. You are actually aware of this and that is why you make the distinction of "after the 80's". I will have to concede some ground here because historically as you have pointed out. The Drug War has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans alike.
@tooltalk But for you to pretend that on a practical level that support for the drug war in contemporary times is not stronger in the conservative communities than the liberal ones is disingenuous and even contradicts the political understanding most conservatives have. It is simply baffling. To me, it is almost as inane as saying the white Evangelicals are mostly passionate Democrats. Besides your logic is flawed, according to you the NDAA is a liberal proposal because Obama signed it...
@threefiveZ : ".. according to you the NDAA is a liberal proposal because Obama signed it.."
eh? putting words in my mouth, again? when I usually bring up the NDAA, it's usually meant to highlight the lefts' double-standard and complicity (or in context of the role/ext of fed gov't). That works bidirectionally.
And when I do use the term "conservatives", unlike your arbitrary definition, I do differentiate the Taft-wing of cons (Paul) from Eisenhower's, to Nixon, to Reagan, to neocons
@tooltalk I didn't put words in your mouth. You implied that the Drug War was a liberal legislation because FDR signed the Marijuana Tax Act. I was just pointing out that your logic simply will not hold. Of course, that is totally lost on you and you continue to babble on about your straw men and epithets. If anyone is being overly presumptuous here, it is quite simply you.
@threefiveZ : Honey, you asked me to explain the war on drugs in terms of political ideologies. And I pointed out it is nonsensical to frame the debate in terms of political ideas: liberal or conservative. I alternatively offered an view that corporate interests influenced such laws in the 30's, the growing big gov't welfare state in the 70's, and the 80's as a hackjob to deal with now out-of-control social / economic problems in the 80's. The black communities were already falling apart by
@tooltalk I will have to agree with you here. A historical analysis to try to pin it on a particular ideology is hopeless as you have demonstrated. Despite its larger support in contemporary conservative circles versus liberal ones, the fact remains that on a practical level it is no more opposed or supported by Democrats than Republicans. So I concede the point on the Drug War being a strictly conservative social engineering endeavor regardless of what Bill O'Reilly says. :)
@tooltalk BTW...why do you call me "honey". I am not offended. It is better than being called "retard". But it makes me wonder if you are a woman. Are you? Just curious, you don't have to answer that.
@threefiveZ : It should be baffling, especially given your narrow background in history/economics. I first noticed it in your Pavlovian reaction to criticism of the Fed earlier - aside from Alan Grayson, most lefties still come to the Fed's defense despite having zero understanding of the Fed or the existing monetary system (or gold).
".. white Evangelicals..Democrats.."
Of course, how else do you think J. Carter, the first openly evangelical prez, was elected in the first place? - though his
@tooltalk As for Carter, I was careful to use the adverb 'mostly'. Reading comprehension helps. And if you think ole Jimmy changes the fact that white Evangelical are for the MOST part conservative and GOP voters, you are hopelessly diluted. I never "defended" the FED. I criticized competing currencies and a whole host of kooky libertarian ideas. You can't have this discussion without revisionist history, straw men, and epithets. That is your deficiency and not mine.
@threefiveZ : LOL!!! I just love it when libs dismiss anything they don't understand as "kooky" or "ananchronistic." Really? Would you mind elaborating on why Hayekian idea of competing currency is so "kooky"? You are certainly not the first lib to make such claim that you can't support - and I suspect you won't be the last one to say "I don't have to" and disappear. LOL!!
@tooltalk Why are you quoting "ananchronistic"? I never used that word. All coming from the whiny bitch who complains about people shoving words in her mouth. Goddamn, what an outrageous, bold faced hypocrite you are! Let me ask you something and see if you can provide an intelligent answer: what makes economics so superior to all the other social sciences?
@threefiveZ : his social/tax policies likewise quickly alienated his own white evangelical support base (especially in South where, while apolitical, they had lined mostly with the demo party up until this point) and pushed them to the arms of the other party.
As for the war on drugs, I've already explained in the past the federal regulation of drugs were influenced by commercials interests in the 30's, the growing big gov't welfare state in the 70's. By 80's,
@tooltalk The South is not "apolitical". For someone who condescends so freely about the understanding of "history" and "economy", you simply don't know shit about culture. The Southerners switched parties after MLK endorsed Kennedy for President. White Southerners are predictable people to pander to: their politics revolve around race as they always have.
@tooltalk Southern Evangelicals? Like Jerry Falwell right: outspoken segregationist before he got his kicks defending the helpless unborn? They are practically the same fucking people. It is called the Bible Belt for a reason.
@threefiveZ : ROFL. I think I've met fewer dumbasses with Dunning symdrome. Of course, ever heard of the fallacy of composition? Falwell is a Southern Evangelical, so everyone in South must be segregationist. LOL!!
How'bout our dear Southern evangelical leader from the Deep South, like Jimmy Carter? or the historical fact that the same Southern evangelicals voted for Carter by 2:1 in 1976 - enabling him to *win* the Deep South! Talk about "Southern Strategy"!! LOL!!
@tooltalk What a worthless, stupid troll you are. What did you get bored? Because I thought we were finished. First of all, I am a Southerner and damn well know what I am talking about. Let me point you in the right direction: read Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals or Cracker Culture by Grady McWhiney. If you would like the Southern Strategy explained in greater detail read Kevin Phillips American Theocracy he is the principal architect of the constituency swap.
@tooltalk BTW...your point about Carter annihilates itself considering that by YOUR OWN ADMISSION Carter was ultimately rejected by the bulk of the Southern constituency in favor of Reagan. So much for your remarkably unremarkable point. Clearly you descend from the lowest pedigrees of Eurotrash to colonize North America and quite possibly the product of generational inbreeding.
@tooltalk I agree with your analysis on the 30's. Not so much on the 70's. There was a puritanical, reactionary inclination guiding conservative politics after the collapse of the moral order of white supremacy. As I have said before, drug use was associated with the enemy: the Marxist hippie. Besides, just follow the issue in contemporary times. In Nevada, it was the law enforcement community and the clergy that spoke out against the legalization of marijuana.
@tooltalk BTW...concerning your constant bitching about Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. I will agree that some of those reforms were not necessary and maybe should be reversed. But you are making the same mistake Thomas Sowell does in his analysis. What was worse for the black folk? Welfare? Or flooding their neighborhoods with cocaine so communism could be defeated in South and Central America? Get a grip for fuck's sake.
@threefiveZ : ROFL!! I really couldn't care whether you agree or not. Based on your demonstrated intellectual immaturity and outlandish historical revisionism, I'm actually starting to feel that I must be wrong whenever you agree with me. Do me a favor, google "Dunning-Kruger effect" and go seek some help. ASAP!!
LBJ's social engineering wasn't just about creating a social safety net for the black folks; many including his own cabinet members (and MLK) came to learn that it was
@tooltalk despite its bipartisan support. It is simply illogical. (BTW...let me clarify myself when I said "according to you", I meant "according to your flawed logic".
@threefiveZ : backers of the bill to protect his investment.
The modern form of the war on drugs goes back to the 60's - when LBJ's, another raging CONSERVATIVE *LOL!!*, botch'ed war in Vietnam and social reforms gave birth to the 60's counter culture movement - often in civil unrest, urban crimes, riots, and not least in drugs. Likewise it was LBJ's increasingly oppressive enforcement of the drug that motivated Leary to challenge the law.
@tooltalk Actually the War on Drugs can trace its genealogy to a much earlier time in American history. Ever heard of Harry Anslinger? I am sure what motivates the Drug War is the same thing that motivated Prohibition: flawed and misplaced puritanical values. The unrest of the 60s to the 90s for that matter are a product of the collapse of the moral order of white supremacy. Ever read Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior? Drug use is associated with the hippies, not God fearing white conservatives.
@threefiveZ : Throughout 70's, however, much of Nixon's, yes the raging liberal, new drug control laws were aimed at liberalizing the existing drug laws and rehabilitating drug addicts - with a great share of funding going to rehabs.
It wasn't until mid 1980's, when the urban crimes, single-mother family, teenage pregnancy rates become the center social/economic/poiltical issue that the drug laws become punitive (in 1984 more stringent penalities were added).
@threefiveZ : This is exactly what neocons like Patrick Moynihan (one of the few who remained as democrat) in the 60's warned about the libtards *SOCIAL ENGINEERING* - that there would be unintended disastrous social consequences.
As the problem of urban crimes and drugs (crack cocaine mostly in 80's), those in the political left largely decided to deal with it by aggressively regulating GUNS, whereas those on the right went after drugs and single mothers.
@tooltalk What audacity! Crack cocaine? That epidemic was fueled by Reagan's need to fund his "contras". Reagan via the CIA is responsible for that! And you are simply wrong with whose to blame for America's lack of national character. It is the good ole, God fearing white folk who are to blame. They failed to offer us something beyond white supremacy. You know why? Because they didn't want to. Besides that, I do agree with your analysis on why and how both the Right/Left responded in the 80's.
looks like you are into conspiracy theory much seriously than I had thought. I never said that the contra had nothing to do with the popularity of crack cocaine, but that drug was blamed for all the social unrests and malaise caused by liberals' misguided social / economic reforms in the 60's. . Just pathetic.
@tooltalk If you are saying that liberal reforms are being scapegoated, then I will agree with you to some extent and my apologies for my lack of reading comprehension. BTW...there is nothing "misguided" about the Civil Rights Act. You would appreciate it a little more if you weren't white, young, and had grown in somewhere like good, ole Dixie (I say this not implying what you are because I don't know...but that is just silly what you said).
@threefiveZ : We can't live without air and water and they are more valuable than food or guns, yet their monetary value is almost zero. Conversely, sugar & spices played an important economic/monetary role in recent human history b/c of their rarity.
Precious metals are finite and rare. The point of a commodity backed currency - be it gold, silver or copper - is likewise to put a market restraint on those, politicians or their puppets, with the power to print arbitrary quantity of money.
@threefiveZ do you even think about the stuff you are saying. I really think the news really have you brainwashed. How is Ron Paul plain is crazy when the military supports him and they out there fighting everyday. So I would think his policy is what the military is trying to say. But yet they don't matter to yall. And also what's wrong with getting the govt out of our lives. Hell rick said the govt should control our sex lives. Do you see what these people are trying to do man.
@kingpin30314 I am not sure how extensive his support is in the military. I was in the military myself and am aware of the political composition of at least my neck of the woods. The Cult of Dr. Paul has a terrible habit of over-exaggerating shit. Dr. Paul isn't going to get the government out of our lives. He will weaken the federal government and leave the bigots to their own devices. That is why he has support in white identity movement.
Brightbart is a lier!! He just needs attention. We knew of J. Edwards because we saw it on TV!!
lhooq21 2 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
Comment removed
threefiveZ 4 weeks ago
that question to newt about his ex was totally staged to help make him look like the victim.
JG1635 1 month ago
Smart girl. Sexy too. I'll be looking for more from her.
MachOverspeedsPlace 1 month ago
I don't like Pierce Morgan. He's no David Frost.
Tuxster3 1 month ago
Breitbart has a lot of guts to slam the "mainstream media" for hypocrisy and a News anchor for Glenn Beck 's "real News"?? Is anything about Beck that is real except in his own head???
exsinor 1 month ago
~~> If everybody knew, why didn't FOX report it?? Newt, makes claims of family values too... I think he is self serving & afraid of commitment if you ask me... Newt won in SC because it is an open primary, meaning dems could vote too... The dems voted for Newt for a reason...
sparkyj99 1 month ago
Didn't Newt say he was a Rockefeller Republican...
steveomac385 1 month ago
@steveomac385
No , Cockherfella.
terryfookwitt 1 month ago
That blond behind Paul is so hot...
steveomac385 1 month ago
Is there some kind of spray that can get rid of these types of humans?
bluesgurugod 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google
America's unrequited love for Israel
Newt Gingrich, Marianne and the Israeli Arms Dealer: A Buried FBI Investigation
GoyimWakeUpCall 1 month ago
Which proves that the news media has always been fucked.
Th2EyA0rEa1MoN2gUs 1 month ago
Yes but we expect lefties to cheat on their wives. It's the fake family values fucks that really deserve to be skewered. Anyway, CNN perfectly set the salamander up to help quash this, so why complain?
fagan411 1 month ago
3:50, - 3:53 peirce morgan flips off his guests!
AdolphBernankee 1 month ago
Breitbart is the new Morton Downey Jr. He's controversial and stands for nothing. And he promotes tabloidism among the republican party.
evilfurby1 1 month ago
Newt is obese. He's a glutton. He can't even manage his weight. How could he manage the job of President?
razerfish 1 month ago
If it's Romney,Gingrich, or Santorum our next president will be Barack Obama. Ron Paul is the neocons only chance of gaining the White House. Please choose wisely.
sallybaker1950 1 month ago
Newt vs Obama = Evil vs Stupid.
search Gingrich Toffler
WVMADMAN1 1 month ago
Losing to Obama is the plan. If Ron Paul gets the nomination they fail.
seeqr9 1 month ago
@seeqr9
i don't know if it's planned or not but republicans ensured the defeat in the presidential election by winning the house. they lost the free ride of bitching and moaning when they were forced to show some responsibility.
ufster81 1 month ago
@ufster81 oh ur still talking fanboy language. they r all the same. its a play. if it werent 4 knowing about Paul before all of this Id think the same about him. Otherwise its all shit. They r all criminals playing to two typs of people.
seeqr9 1 month ago
Gingrich preaches of strong conservative "family values". He wants to use the government to enforce those personal values as law unto others. If you're going to preach you'd better have your affairs in order to be a model for the bullshit you're slinging otherwise speak only of the truths you know. Crying about LBGT's trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage while simultaneously destroying the heterosexual sanctity of marriage reflects poorly on your intellect and character as a man.
timongarretson 1 month ago
fuck newt,
dispersingweight 1 month ago
Funny! What a DOUBLE STANDARD! 20 years ago, the Repukes were up Bill & Hillary Clinton's asses about every little tart Clinton messed with. AND HE'S STILL MARRIED to Hillary.
Newt has affairs, multiple wives, ... but he's a repuke, so it's okay.
Geezus! Americans are stupid.
karenbcz22 1 month ago
Comment removed
pureaggression 1 month ago
The people of South Carolina proved they were typical hypocritical Christians, not that they were anti-media.
If they were going to prove they were anti-media, they would have voted for Ron Paul. They simply proved their ignorance and idiocy, nothing more. South Carolina proved to be a complete joke, even worse than Iowa.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity Southerners are just a little more violent than your typical American. Despite Paul's views on states' rights or what not, he just ain't bloodthirsty enough for the Southerners. The irony considering how good libertarians have been to the CSA and the glorious traditions of Dixie. What gratitude? But what can you expect from a bunch of rednecks and klansmen?
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ hey when you mother is your dad's half sister what do you expect.
Textynn 1 month ago
@Textynn I expect libertarians to stop lionizing the CSA and vilifying Lincoln. That is what I expect.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ Ron Paul said the same words prime minister netanyahu of Israel said verbatim. So are u telling me even the prime minister of Israel is crazy for saying they can defend their own self. Do you really think spending money to take care of other countries make the USA safer lol that's like saying imma pay your bills and the electric company going to leave my lights on because I'm.helping you out. Dogg you are crazy as they come
kingpin30314 1 month ago 19
@kingpin30314 You are aware that an Israeli PAC has been created to destroy Paul's reputation? So much for that point. And when did I ever say anything about whether or not aid to Israel was justified? I merely stated that what you called the MSM is actually owned and operated largely by Jews who don't appreciate Paul lack luster support of their colony. Hell even Murdoch is onboard with this. You are a presumptuous idiot: pure and simple, and you have the nerve to call me crazy.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
Andrew Breitbart, the hemorrhoid on the asshole of America!
BarackMcBush 1 month ago 4
When and how to use a journalist...
"After your period. To clear out vaginal secretions/poop. Whenever you want to feel clean and brainwashed. How to Douche: Gently insert microphone into your vagina/mangina, no more than 3 inches (think O'Reilly, Hannity or Rush), and slowly squeeze and rant. Do not close the anal opening; douching solution should flow freely out of the hole. Use while sitting on the toilet, or sitting at a newsdesk."
crackerwv 1 month ago
Yeah, couldn't be the fact that Gingrich is a massive hypocrite. Normally I don't care about someone's personal life, but when a guy sits on a panel and impeaches someone for infidelity, and preaches against it, while engaging in infidelity himself. . .
Swidhelm 1 month ago 3
@threefiveZ. Dumb troll. Go watch fox or cnn.
robstuk1 1 month ago
@robstuk1 Why? When I could watch MOXnews? You know I really hated what that asshole, PhilosopherGod or whatever that queer's moniker was, did. It just not the same without the FOX clips. Wow, I just realized the irony of your point considering this channel shows CNN and until recently showed FOX as well. Come on, guy. Give it some effort.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
Trust me, if Fox "News" knew about his affair they would have led with that at every hour and spent an entire week with Bill O'really running his foul mouth about it. Andrew is not only a bold faced liar, but an asshole to boot.
jw12yrsctch 1 month ago
the make believe land of TV now owns our politics.
lhooq21 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I knew J Edwards was cheating because they said it on TV----this is such a joke---what the hell is this guy on about?????
lhooq21 1 month ago
@threefiveZ look I really thought you was just playing but I really see now you are brainwashed by the MSM. Now imma democrat but I know the stuff Ron Paul is saying is true. That's why they(MSM) hate him so much because his plan takes money out of the mainstream pocket because these people are sold off and the fed has them in there back pocket
kingpin30314 1 month ago
@kingpin30314 You know what I relish in? The irony of being accused of being brainwashed or a zombie by a group of people who parrot the exact same shit...even about being brainwashed. You are the reason I wake up every morning. Paul's position about Israel is why the so-called MSM gives him the cold shoulder, not the FED. To the average American, things like competing currencies is a kooky idea.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ LOL!! Talk about brainwash. You're falling for the damn MEDIA hype that you can't even listen to what Israel wants.
slckofit 1 month ago
@slckofit It is funny to have Hasbara call you an anti-semite one day, only for a Paultard to accuse of being a Goy bitch the next. Oh...the irony.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
Family value republicans do seem hypocritical.
MendingMedia 1 month ago
cnn needs to fire that teabagging phonehacker.
dontfwithme2010 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Breitbart is a compulsive liar.
lhooq21 1 month ago
I knew J Edwards was cheating because they said it on TV
lhooq21 1 month ago
I with my mother fucking aborted me. What a shit hole this planet is.
AveragePope 1 month ago
How low does the media will be willing to descend?. I guess they mirror the educational level of the audience.
Francebrasil 1 month ago
Basically this discussion is about appearance in handling things & Gingrich did good at it. Appearance over substance.
Ron Paul is substance that others lack & claim to have.
VexZeed 1 month ago
Breitbart is a compulsive liar. Fuck him.
THISorTHATchannel 1 month ago
John Edwards dropped out of the race because of his affair. When is Newt dropping out?
starkweather444 1 month ago
@starkweather444 : when one of his mistresses shows up with a baby?
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
Breitbart is a fucking dickhead.
bobster451 1 month ago
ONCE WE WENT BLACK. WE'LL NEVER GO BACK.
BIGBABYZIP 1 month ago
What a clusterfuck of douchebaggery.
RedTory59 1 month ago 27
@RedTory59
I know right. I can't figure out who is the biggest douche of all these clowns
pennjersey83 1 month ago
@RedTory59 exactly. these situations force us to choose who's "better" when theres really no difference.
goonerLIFE1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
President Obama saved the country from a great depression. He is the most decent and moral person in this race any weakness or perceived weakness is only his natural instinct to compromise and to see value in all political arguments.God bless President Obama and 4 more years!!!
bigcomcast 1 month ago
@bigcomcast : Obama's 1st term = Bush's 3rd term!
4 more years of Bush!
tooltalk 1 month ago
@bigcomcast President Obama prolonged recessions which would have ended in 12 months. Now we have it in the 5th year and counting. Just look at recession of 1921 which was finished in 18 months, and compare with Hoover/FDR Great Depression. Bush/Obama did exactly the same - bailout and prolonging of the depression. I have my reservations about Obama decency but in any case he is destroying the country economically and morally. He is Bush 3rd tern indeed - absolutely no changes from W.
rtcell 1 month ago
@rtcell The president is the classiest guy in the race.He saved the auto industry in America and helped GM bring home the title of top car company.His morals are impeccable compared to people like Gingrich and Romney. And he got Bin Laden and ended the war in Iraq.You owe the president your gratitude for keeping you safe and prosperous
bigcomcast 1 month ago 2
@bigcomcast Yes. Obama is the classiest guy in the race. And anyone has impeccable morale compared to Newt. But Obama did not save any industry, nor did he end any war... I keep *myself* prosperous (hard to do after taxes), and he makes me less safe. I am sure you deeply care for the country but I am sorry you think the "saving" and "keeping save" is anything but brainwashing - it just shows full lack of understanding of economics and geopolitics. No room in youtube to explain more
rtcell 1 month ago
As much as i HATE newt gingrich he does have a point. but hes still an asshole
thekidofva 1 month ago
Breitbart is a douche bag.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 month ago
oh my god breitbart looks more and more like a homeless person every time i see him
frustratedlogician 1 month ago
Newt is a Rockefeller Republican. Dude is lying at the end.
"There is almost a new synthesis evolving with the classic moderate wing of the party, where, as a former Rockefeller state chairman, I’ve spent most of my life, and the conservative/activist right wing" -Newt Gingrich
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
Piers Morgan is a wanker.
rccjunk69 1 month ago
@threefiveZ Ron Paul top three contributors are the Army,Navy and Air force. And he's saying "end the fed" do you even know what the federal reserve bank is. One its not Federal nor is it a Reserve. It's a privately owned bank that got us in this mess since 1913 when it was open they stole 7.77 trillion dollars since 2008 to now. They send us to war because they get paid for it that's why they play this terrorist line because it put ppl in fear and they will do anything
kingpin30314 1 month ago
@kingpin30314 Sure thing, but if I had the logic of the average Ron Paul supporter, I would have to say that those donations were bogus and it is just part of a conspiracy to make Ron Paul look good. I understand what the Federal Reserve is. Why do you think the only solution to the Reserve is the libertarian one of abolishing it and replacing it with competing currencies? My problem with libertarians is they are uncompromising extremists just like Marxists.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ : hate to jump in, but I don't think you understand what the Fed does and why libertarians as well as progressives like Huey Long (and Alan Grayson) have distrusted the Fed and have been speaking out against the Fed.
Firstly, why would you exactly want to give so much monopolistic power to unelected few technocrats (though they are appointed by POTUS for as long as 14) and shielded it from check-and-balance that applies to all sector of our gov't?
tooltalk 1 month ago
@tooltalk It is true that both libertarians and liberals alike dislike the FED. And it is equally true that they both have different solutions to it. I don't support the FED, but I don't support the libertarian solution either. I would nationalize it and seize the resources from those "technocrats".
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ
Yeah, so that those benevolent bureaucrats in Washington have full control of the monetary system. Brilliant.
That's the beauty of the libertarian system, the market (the people) determines what the value of a currency is, and what the interest rate is.
myhipsi 1 month ago
@myhipsi I have heard of the so-called beauty of libertarian society, and in artistic form, I would have to say Bioshock captured it quite well. See the problem with me is I have this epistemology called empiricism. I do not accept the fallacy of tradition excuse as to why a libertarian dystopia has never existed. I just think you guys have human nature all wrong.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ
You seem to be mistaking libertarianism for anarchism. A true libertarian society depends greatly on adherence to the rule of law. The right to life, liberty, and property. You need a federal government to perform the basic functions of national defence, protection of life/liberty, and enforcement of contracts through a judicial system. The states take care of the rest, but the state cannot trump basic constitutional rights.
myhipsi 1 month ago
@myhipsi I think libertarianism can be divided into two camps: anchrocapitalism and minarchism. Only in minarchism does something that we can understand as a government exist, and even then only as law enforcement and military. Libertarians can have different religious perspectives as well that will influence views on abortion and what not. But in all its forms, it is rational philosophy based on certain erroneous axioms. Human beings are violent, tribal animals.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ The point about Libertarianism and Utilitarianism is that it CONCEDES that man is violent and manipulative, so it aims to set up institutions that offset this BUT it also acknowledges that men will will try and subvert such a government for their own incentives, so in Milton Friedman's terminology, Consequentialist Libertarianism aims for the smallest Government that yields the maximum in personal liberty.
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 What place does nationality have in consequentialist libertarianism?
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ I never mentioned nationality... I was responding to your claims: " But in all its forms, it is rational philosophy based on certain erroneous axioms"... I see nothing "erroneous" about political assertions Libertarians put forward. And your claim that they don't concede that human beings have violent tendencies is not true.
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 Do you think nationality is a naturally occurring phenomena or do you think it is a trick that ruling elites play on the vulgar rabble? Perhaps a little of both? You misunderstood me, and I was attempting to clarify myself. It is the tribal part of that nature that I think libertarians get wrong. I had to state the adjective 'violent' because it is equally true and necessary to understand the human being. Do you care to tell me now?
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ I think that nationality isn't naturally occuring. Its simply the most convenient grounds for setting up common arrangements either on racial/cultural/previous legal/language or under some ruler which is convenient. How does that impact the Libertarian assertion that within the area/people of common arrangement, the arrangement that maximizes freedom will yield the best results? I suspect you're trying to differentiate John Locke's notion of consent vs liberty. Still not following u.
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 Well, I will have to disagree. The human animal is a social animal, and because of this, is endowed with an instinct for the tribe. I agree with your "grounds", but I think you fail to understand what drives people to settle for such grounds. Add this instinct for a tribe with a violent nature and you have a legitimate explanation for war and its purpose in history. War is another thing I think libertarians get wrong. Do you think war can ever be profitable?
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ I've never disagreed that their is an instinct of tribe and loyalty. What I disagree is that the tribe is constructed on ARBITRARY grounds. I accept that war can be the result of inter-tribal feuds especially over resources. But you HAVEN'T explained how this conflicts with Libertarianism. Libertarianism accepts that conflicts will exist with others who are not Libertarian and where there is uncertainty over property rights. And now you go off on a tangent "is war profitable?".
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 It has been my experience with libertarians that they oppose war because they feel that it always and absolutely destroys wealth. The fact of the matter is war doesn't always do this. Libertarians think they have political stances that are based on empirical fact like war never creates wealth but in fact it is merely a moral preference. That is what that tangent is about.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ Specifically, to clarify, I believe there is a human instinct to form tribes. What I disagree with, is that a PARTICULAR tribe is naturally occuring. i.e. there will always be a particular tribe around dna/geography/language etc. Humans have evolved to pick whichever characteristic they find most convenient. Also, understand I'm a Utilitarian, not a Libertarian. But on the issue you've raised, I don't see how you even put a dent in the Libertarian argument. So playing devils advocate
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 My experience with political theory is that it rests upon some understanding of human nature. To be wrong about political theory especially on a macro level of general theory is to be wrong about that nature. To not use war EVER to expand the resources of the tribe is to weaken the tribe while the tribes that do will profit. Now I am not going say it is unnatural (and maybe I should retract my initial statement), but lets say that Mother Nature has a way of dealing with weakness.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ Second. Political&Economic theory should NOT be based on how you think human nature works (Praxeology in Austrian terms), but rather on Scientific Empirics. This is what is referred to as the Normative/Positive distinction. tinyurl(.)com/8b7vc Because you make claims about human nature you then deduce what OUGHT to happen, rather than what DOES happen. I.e. because human nature is violent, people OUGHT to go to war to increase their land. Rather, look at what history says.
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
@dmg46664 How I think human nature works? Scientific Empirics? What? Empiricism is my epistemology. My claims about human nature are from empirical observation. What does happen is people do form tribal groups and compete over resources sometimes violently. This isn't what OUGHT to be, this is what IS! My REAL political views or what is left of them have nothing to with what I call my anthropology. In fact, I was the first utopian I trolled.
threefiveZ 4 weeks ago
@threefiveZ I understand that your human nature claims are empirical... I don't dispute that. I dispute that claims about the benefits of the outcomes of war are deduceable from human nature first principals. Also simply identifying that humans have a violent bent doesn't trump other theories of benevolent and rational human nature. You haven't produced a verified model which squares these and so your deductions are suspect. Hence the reason I site normate/positive distinction.
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
@dmg46664 Unfortunately in my anthropology war is an integral, inescapable part of the human condition. It appears to be a driving force in our evolution. War, itself, has contributed much to the development of technology. Humans are complex animals. I can not deny the "good" in them. Human do have an instinct to cooperate, but in my view, they will always form these competitive tribes. They will always war. Babel will always fall. Understand, I wish it weren't so.
threefiveZ 4 weeks ago
@threefiveZ Actually, you're empirically incorrect! Human beings have been escaping war/conflict and violence consistently over the last 10000 years. Here's the data...
tinyurl(.)com/ysvxlk
Sounds like you're a polemicist without evidence.
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
@dmg46664 Well played. Good video. On one hand, it made me think about Hegel and Marx. The idea of mankind progressing to a better tomorrow due to the very mechanics of history itself. On the other, it made me think of Nietzsche as he denounces the last men for his overman. Either way, touche...touche.
threefiveZ 4 weeks ago
@threefiveZ Which video? The Economic Freedom? Or the other one posted on the History of Violence? Anyways, I think that you should be careful before making assumptions about Libertarians (which can be broken down into the Rand/Austrian/Friedmanite variety) and also about normative athropological claims. Let's leave it there. Good night!! Do yourself a favour and watch Free to Choose tinyurl(.)com/7hvc8pg
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
@dmg46664 The history of violence. I thought that was evident by what I said. It is not the smoking gun you think it was but it certainly caused me to rethink some things. Why should I be careful? See the thing is unlike most of these nerds on here, I don't care if I am wrong. In fact, I invite the opportunity to be proven so. Now am I done with my little lambs, not hardly, but the methodology utilized in this thread will either be modified or completely discarded.
threefiveZ 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@threefiveZ Well, I wish you the best of luck. By "careful", I meant of your assumptions. Learning to think critically requires practise.. You were sloppy, and sloppiness breads more sloppiness. It's all fine and well to invite others to point out your flaws, but it is MUCH better for one to learn to be self-critical. That's what I meant by careful. Again, good luck.
dmg46664 3 weeks ago
@dmg46664 One more thought, please do not invoke empiricism to argue a position that has never materialized in physical reality. There has never been a libertarian society. Arguing for its existence is as bold of a claim as arguing for the possibility of time travel. I will believe it when I see it. Until then, it is just science fiction like John Galt or Rapture.
threefiveZ 4 weeks ago
@threefiveZ I'm not a Libertarian! So don't assume that I make claims about a Utopian Libertarian society. I find Ayn Rand very Utopian... but I find Milton Friedman's school of Libertarianism much more agreeable. Moreover, it isnt an all or nothing picture and he provides empirics to suggest that the more free a society the better it's prosperity. That trend is noisy but statistically correlated & empirically correct.
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
@dmg46664 I am sorry I didn't to be crass. I remember that you are merely playing the devil's advocate. But you are correct and I must concede the point, a real critique would require a more suitable forum and much more of my time than I already have devoted.
threefiveZ 4 weeks ago
@threefiveZ tinyurl(.)com/4x5kyw7 This is the data I'm talking about. You can find more at the heritage.org/index/ Also watch Milton Friedman's series Free to Choose, the 1980's series.
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
@dmg46664 watch?v=v1U1Jzdghjk? Is that what you are trying to share? I just want to make sure.
threefiveZ 4 weeks ago
@threefiveZ Yes, that was the one video... summarizes correlation nicely. But more data is available on heritage.org.
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@threefiveZ Yes, that was the one video... summarizes correlation nicely. But more data is available on heritage.org.
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
@threefiveZ So regarding war to increase prosperity... there have been examples in history, but they are not easy to think of except when indigenous ppl were wiped out. It was more costly to extend the British empire than ANY amount of money it got back from the colonies. Compare that to Jefferson's Louisiana purchase which doubled the size of the USA with only a financial cost.(and Alaska purchase). Look at the USA's recent track record, few instigated wars in last 100 years were worth it.
dmg46664 4 weeks ago
@threefiveZ
Human beings CAN be violent, tribal animals. It is certainly in our DNA, but so is the tendency for co-operation and mutually beneficial relationships.
You say the problem with libertarians is that they assume human nature is moral and just. But the problem with statists and authoritarians is that they assume human nature is cruel and unjust. The fact is that we are all these things and everything in between. That's why a rule of law is so important. Liberty works with rules.
myhipsi 1 month ago
@myhipsi I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment here. I think when you look at a libertarian's view of war, it comes more into perspective. It is one thing to argue that unprovoked war is unjust, quite another to argue that war can never be profitable. I am surprised by the moral absolutism of it at times. There is a reason that nothing like a libertarian utopia has ever existed despite the fact that democracies and republics are old.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ
Yes, and I think the reason for this is likely due to the nature of a central government and it's tendency to grow and accumulate more power. That is the Achilles heal, so to speak, of the libertarian system, that it needs a "limited" central authority in order to work. To quote Thomas Paine, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." This is my reasoning as to why a libertarian "utopia" is difficult to achieve.
myhipsi 1 month ago
@myhipsi Well it is one thing to have a preference and quite another to state something unequivocally. There are other example besides war that libertarians view through this prism of absolutism. A liberal can understand that war can be profitable and still argue against it, but a libertarian seems to me to require being convinced that it can never be so to oppose it. This is what I am actually curious about. I would love to hear your reasoning on this.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@threefiveZ : eh? what's up with liberals solution of too-big/important-to-fail / if we leave, there'd be chaos, so let's bailout/subsidize/nationalize everything?
What's the point of "nationalizing" the Fed when printing (coining) money is already a legitimate function and responsibility of congress? And what "resources"? You mean their holding of the US treasury or magical money-printing machines?
tooltalk 1 month ago
@tooltalk "Liberal"...huh? You got a lot of nerve using that word and in that erroneous context. I guess the GOP is liberal by your standards...huh? If that be the case, I reject whatever definition you have for conservatism.
I don't have a problem with fiat money. I have a problem with the printing of it being done by private hands. I am sure in a truly libertarian society all money would printed so. Gold isn't money. Food and guns are more valuable than so-called precious metal.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ : Of course, it is. Neoconservatism is a form of warfare/welfare liberalism started by communists - trotskyies to be precise. Back in the 50's and 60's they were lumped up with other cold-war liberals. Paul is more along the line of Taft-wing paleocon.
Now, you are getting ahead already throwing kitchen sink. The issue here isn't so much that money printing itself is bad, but that no single private inst or gov't is wise or neutral enough not to abuse its power to print money.
tooltalk 1 month ago
@tooltalk I am so sick of that term. To me, Neoconservatism is a word that conservatives use to alleviate themselves of moral responsibility much like the Tea Party which was the Bush constituency trying to distance themselves from the disaster of that administration and looking for any scapegoat they could find. The issue with a real conservative isn't government or no government. It is what government and why. Paul is not a conservative. IMHO, he is a minarchist libertarian.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ : looks like everyone has their own spin on neocns, but conservatives don't use the term neocons to describe their own political ideas or policies. In fact, the term was coined by socialists in early 70's to ridicule a sect of cold-war liberals critical of LBJ's Great Society / welfare policies - and who correctly foresaw the destructive social / economic consequences of the delusional liberal revolution in the 60's.
tooltalk 1 month ago
@tooltalk Name a "neocon". Name one of these cold war liberals (and please name one that isn't Jewish). I have actually heard narratives similar to this one to describe the so-called origin of the "neocon". I have a sneaky suspicion that what you mean by "neocon" is a conservative who supports the Long War which, at the beginning of it, was damn near all of them. Conservatives love government. They love to use it for social engineering.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ : sure, Irving Kristol / LBJ.
As for your "sneaky" suspicion, well, not quite. Back in the days, both cold-war, dovish big gov't libs were for permanent wars. The former group held internationalist liberal views promoting military aggression/intervention, so big gov't was necessary, while the latter had blind faith in big gov't and their ability to keep people duly employed in gov't / war industries. This is what irked Ike; and consequently his warning against the MIC.
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : Not surprisingly, neocons belong to the former group (fervent anti-Stalinist - Trotsky was eventually ax'ed to death in Mexico), but they were also believers of big gov't - in fact, leading social critics/proponents of LBJ's social engineering (hope that answers your comment about present day cons' loving social engineering).
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@tooltalk How would you describe the War on Drugs? What is that policy's relation to what you understand as "conservative"?
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : eh? so what about the war on drugs?
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : what's so "conservative" about the war on drugs? it was started by one of the most liberal president in modern US history and whose expansive social / economic policies ("we are all Keynesians now") admired by the lefties like Krugman and Chomsky - who called him the "last progressive president." It's also worth noting though that the war on drug in its original form in the 70's was more geared towards rehabilitating drug addicts, than punishing them (after 80's).
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@tooltalk You mean Richard Nixon: godfather of the Southern Strategy...the same political tactics that Paul ineffectively and inefficiently employs? Punishing after the 80's...huh? You mean after Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign? So two liberals incognito, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, started the drug war? Wow...what a pathetic way not to take responsibility for what has been done! That is right!!! The War on Drug is the creation of HIPPIES: AN EVIL LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!! LOL!!!
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : ROFL!! I haven't said anything about the war on drugs after 80's, but I see where you are heading - time to cover your ass now. LOL!!!
Yep, I perfectly understand your anger and disappointment. It just sucks when historical facts never fit liberal' narratives, doesn't it? I have to say it's always fun watching libtards squirming when the truth about themselves are exposed.
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@tooltalk Richard Nixon was after the 80's? You do realize that he started the War on Drugs principally in response to Supreme Court's decision regarding Timothy Leary suing over the Marijuana Tax Act? Time to cover whose ass now? Your "conservativism" if it ever existed is now DOA after the Southern Strategy (which also started before the 80's). I know history quite well. I have just never seen such an obvious shuck and jive before.
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ DOA = dead on arrival (I don't think that was as clear as I initially thought).
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : ROFL!!! Sherlock, did you just figure that out from watching the Family Guys? Wow, you must be the smartest kid in your entire 3rd grade. LOL!!
ROFL!! So let me guess, the dude FDR who passe the original Marijuana Act in 1937 must also be a raging conservative! I already warned you, Libtards != History don't mix!!
LOL!!
Honey, the original bill enacted by FDR back in the 30's were largely influenced by the lumber/paper corporate interest, Hearst being one of the notable ones
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@tooltalk WTF are you talking about? Family Guy? What??? Your argument rests upon antiquated definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that are null and void after the collapse of the racial caste system. You are actually aware of this and that is why you make the distinction of "after the 80's". I will have to concede some ground here because historically as you have pointed out. The Drug War has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans alike.
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@tooltalk But for you to pretend that on a practical level that support for the drug war in contemporary times is not stronger in the conservative communities than the liberal ones is disingenuous and even contradicts the political understanding most conservatives have. It is simply baffling. To me, it is almost as inane as saying the white Evangelicals are mostly passionate Democrats. Besides your logic is flawed, according to you the NDAA is a liberal proposal because Obama signed it...
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : ".. according to you the NDAA is a liberal proposal because Obama signed it.."
eh? putting words in my mouth, again? when I usually bring up the NDAA, it's usually meant to highlight the lefts' double-standard and complicity (or in context of the role/ext of fed gov't). That works bidirectionally.
And when I do use the term "conservatives", unlike your arbitrary definition, I do differentiate the Taft-wing of cons (Paul) from Eisenhower's, to Nixon, to Reagan, to neocons
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk I didn't put words in your mouth. You implied that the Drug War was a liberal legislation because FDR signed the Marijuana Tax Act. I was just pointing out that your logic simply will not hold. Of course, that is totally lost on you and you continue to babble on about your straw men and epithets. If anyone is being overly presumptuous here, it is quite simply you.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : Honey, you asked me to explain the war on drugs in terms of political ideologies. And I pointed out it is nonsensical to frame the debate in terms of political ideas: liberal or conservative. I alternatively offered an view that corporate interests influenced such laws in the 30's, the growing big gov't welfare state in the 70's, and the 80's as a hackjob to deal with now out-of-control social / economic problems in the 80's. The black communities were already falling apart by
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk I will have to agree with you here. A historical analysis to try to pin it on a particular ideology is hopeless as you have demonstrated. Despite its larger support in contemporary conservative circles versus liberal ones, the fact remains that on a practical level it is no more opposed or supported by Democrats than Republicans. So I concede the point on the Drug War being a strictly conservative social engineering endeavor regardless of what Bill O'Reilly says. :)
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk BTW...why do you call me "honey". I am not offended. It is better than being called "retard". But it makes me wonder if you are a woman. Are you? Just curious, you don't have to answer that.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : It should be baffling, especially given your narrow background in history/economics. I first noticed it in your Pavlovian reaction to criticism of the Fed earlier - aside from Alan Grayson, most lefties still come to the Fed's defense despite having zero understanding of the Fed or the existing monetary system (or gold).
".. white Evangelicals..Democrats.."
Of course, how else do you think J. Carter, the first openly evangelical prez, was elected in the first place? - though his
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk As for Carter, I was careful to use the adverb 'mostly'. Reading comprehension helps. And if you think ole Jimmy changes the fact that white Evangelical are for the MOST part conservative and GOP voters, you are hopelessly diluted. I never "defended" the FED. I criticized competing currencies and a whole host of kooky libertarian ideas. You can't have this discussion without revisionist history, straw men, and epithets. That is your deficiency and not mine.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : LOL!!! I just love it when libs dismiss anything they don't understand as "kooky" or "ananchronistic." Really? Would you mind elaborating on why Hayekian idea of competing currency is so "kooky"? You are certainly not the first lib to make such claim that you can't support - and I suspect you won't be the last one to say "I don't have to" and disappear. LOL!!
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk Why are you quoting "ananchronistic"? I never used that word. All coming from the whiny bitch who complains about people shoving words in her mouth. Goddamn, what an outrageous, bold faced hypocrite you are! Let me ask you something and see if you can provide an intelligent answer: what makes economics so superior to all the other social sciences?
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : his social/tax policies likewise quickly alienated his own white evangelical support base (especially in South where, while apolitical, they had lined mostly with the demo party up until this point) and pushed them to the arms of the other party.
As for the war on drugs, I've already explained in the past the federal regulation of drugs were influenced by commercials interests in the 30's, the growing big gov't welfare state in the 70's. By 80's,
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk The South is not "apolitical". For someone who condescends so freely about the understanding of "history" and "economy", you simply don't know shit about culture. The Southerners switched parties after MLK endorsed Kennedy for President. White Southerners are predictable people to pander to: their politics revolve around race as they always have.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : No, honey, we are talking about Southern evangelicals, not Southerners in general. Ever heard of the term "the year of evangelicals?"
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk Southern Evangelicals? Like Jerry Falwell right: outspoken segregationist before he got his kicks defending the helpless unborn? They are practically the same fucking people. It is called the Bible Belt for a reason.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : ROFL. I think I've met fewer dumbasses with Dunning symdrome. Of course, ever heard of the fallacy of composition? Falwell is a Southern Evangelical, so everyone in South must be segregationist. LOL!!
How'bout our dear Southern evangelical leader from the Deep South, like Jimmy Carter? or the historical fact that the same Southern evangelicals voted for Carter by 2:1 in 1976 - enabling him to *win* the Deep South! Talk about "Southern Strategy"!! LOL!!
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk What a worthless, stupid troll you are. What did you get bored? Because I thought we were finished. First of all, I am a Southerner and damn well know what I am talking about. Let me point you in the right direction: read Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals or Cracker Culture by Grady McWhiney. If you would like the Southern Strategy explained in greater detail read Kevin Phillips American Theocracy he is the principal architect of the constituency swap.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk BTW...your point about Carter annihilates itself considering that by YOUR OWN ADMISSION Carter was ultimately rejected by the bulk of the Southern constituency in favor of Reagan. So much for your remarkably unremarkable point. Clearly you descend from the lowest pedigrees of Eurotrash to colonize North America and quite possibly the product of generational inbreeding.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk I agree with your analysis on the 30's. Not so much on the 70's. There was a puritanical, reactionary inclination guiding conservative politics after the collapse of the moral order of white supremacy. As I have said before, drug use was associated with the enemy: the Marxist hippie. Besides, just follow the issue in contemporary times. In Nevada, it was the law enforcement community and the clergy that spoke out against the legalization of marijuana.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk BTW...concerning your constant bitching about Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. I will agree that some of those reforms were not necessary and maybe should be reversed. But you are making the same mistake Thomas Sowell does in his analysis. What was worse for the black folk? Welfare? Or flooding their neighborhoods with cocaine so communism could be defeated in South and Central America? Get a grip for fuck's sake.
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@threefiveZ : ROFL!! I really couldn't care whether you agree or not. Based on your demonstrated intellectual immaturity and outlandish historical revisionism, I'm actually starting to feel that I must be wrong whenever you agree with me. Do me a favor, google "Dunning-Kruger effect" and go seek some help. ASAP!!
LBJ's social engineering wasn't just about creating a social safety net for the black folks; many including his own cabinet members (and MLK) came to learn that it was
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk despite its bipartisan support. It is simply illogical. (BTW...let me clarify myself when I said "according to you", I meant "according to your flawed logic".
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : backers of the bill to protect his investment.
The modern form of the war on drugs goes back to the 60's - when LBJ's, another raging CONSERVATIVE *LOL!!*, botch'ed war in Vietnam and social reforms gave birth to the 60's counter culture movement - often in civil unrest, urban crimes, riots, and not least in drugs. Likewise it was LBJ's increasingly oppressive enforcement of the drug that motivated Leary to challenge the law.
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@tooltalk Actually the War on Drugs can trace its genealogy to a much earlier time in American history. Ever heard of Harry Anslinger? I am sure what motivates the Drug War is the same thing that motivated Prohibition: flawed and misplaced puritanical values. The unrest of the 60s to the 90s for that matter are a product of the collapse of the moral order of white supremacy. Ever read Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior? Drug use is associated with the hippies, not God fearing white conservatives.
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : Throughout 70's, however, much of Nixon's, yes the raging liberal, new drug control laws were aimed at liberalizing the existing drug laws and rehabilitating drug addicts - with a great share of funding going to rehabs.
It wasn't until mid 1980's, when the urban crimes, single-mother family, teenage pregnancy rates become the center social/economic/poiltical issue that the drug laws become punitive (in 1984 more stringent penalities were added).
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : This is exactly what neocons like Patrick Moynihan (one of the few who remained as democrat) in the 60's warned about the libtards *SOCIAL ENGINEERING* - that there would be unintended disastrous social consequences.
As the problem of urban crimes and drugs (crack cocaine mostly in 80's), those in the political left largely decided to deal with it by aggressively regulating GUNS, whereas those on the right went after drugs and single mothers.
tooltalk 3 weeks ago
@tooltalk What audacity! Crack cocaine? That epidemic was fueled by Reagan's need to fund his "contras". Reagan via the CIA is responsible for that! And you are simply wrong with whose to blame for America's lack of national character. It is the good ole, God fearing white folk who are to blame. They failed to offer us something beyond white supremacy. You know why? Because they didn't want to. Besides that, I do agree with your analysis on why and how both the Right/Left responded in the 80's.
threefiveZ 3 weeks ago
@threefiveZ : another strawman/red herring..
looks like you are into conspiracy theory much seriously than I had thought. I never said that the contra had nothing to do with the popularity of crack cocaine, but that drug was blamed for all the social unrests and malaise caused by liberals' misguided social / economic reforms in the 60's. . Just pathetic.
tooltalk 2 weeks ago
@tooltalk If you are saying that liberal reforms are being scapegoated, then I will agree with you to some extent and my apologies for my lack of reading comprehension. BTW...there is nothing "misguided" about the Civil Rights Act. You would appreciate it a little more if you weren't white, young, and had grown in somewhere like good, ole Dixie (I say this not implying what you are because I don't know...but that is just silly what you said).
threefiveZ 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 month ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 month ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@threefiveZ : We can't live without air and water and they are more valuable than food or guns, yet their monetary value is almost zero. Conversely, sugar & spices played an important economic/monetary role in recent human history b/c of their rarity.
Precious metals are finite and rare. The point of a commodity backed currency - be it gold, silver or copper - is likewise to put a market restraint on those, politicians or their puppets, with the power to print arbitrary quantity of money.
tooltalk 1 month ago
@threefiveZ do you even think about the stuff you are saying. I really think the news really have you brainwashed. How is Ron Paul plain is crazy when the military supports him and they out there fighting everyday. So I would think his policy is what the military is trying to say. But yet they don't matter to yall. And also what's wrong with getting the govt out of our lives. Hell rick said the govt should control our sex lives. Do you see what these people are trying to do man.
kingpin30314 1 month ago
@kingpin30314 I am not sure how extensive his support is in the military. I was in the military myself and am aware of the political composition of at least my neck of the woods. The Cult of Dr. Paul has a terrible habit of over-exaggerating shit. Dr. Paul isn't going to get the government out of our lives. He will weaken the federal government and leave the bigots to their own devices. That is why he has support in white identity movement.
threefiveZ 1 month ago
@threefiveZ Cult of Dr. Paul? Did you learn that phrase from the shit-stream media?
pittsburghsports16 1 month ago