I actually may ending up bringing the points in this video in my history class, because tomorrow I'm supposed to talk about the recent tea party in class. I have a feeling that half of the people in my class don't know about the tea party at all, and I would like to bring up the points about the fake "tea party"
You completely missed the point, and i don't think you could possibly have watched the video. I plainly said that the subversive groups didn't represent the tea party, that means (contrary to your defensive comment), they DON'T share the same ideology.
There not being a sign up sheet doesn't prohibit anybody from denouncing the crazy, racist groups who use this movement to push their agenda. I'm still waiting for the supporters (including you) to denounce them.
@standinstann Oh I got the point. I and almost everyone else denounce this kind of stupidity.
Although it sure didn't stop you from doing an eight minute hit-piece trying paint everyone in the tea party with the same brush. And of course everyone knows as soon as it's denounced you will accuse everyone of 'a guilty conscience'.
You are an excellent propagandist, Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
To the first part, I've never heard a single person of substance do so.
To the second, I don't know what kind of comment that invites; it seems as though when I make a comment that you don't know how to answer you call it propaganda and dismiss it, I don't know what MSNBC has to do with anything, and I guarantee you, I'm better looking than Goebbels, I'm more fun to be around, and i tell funnier jokes.
@standinstann I am a person of substance and I do. So does Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and every other 'person of substance' I can think of.
If you never listen to these people how would you know? Not knowing certainly doesn't stop you from making the asinine statement that NONE of them have denounced it.
How many members of the environmental movement denounced the una-bomber? I didn't hear a single person of substance do it. They must ALL be raving lunatic terrorist.
@standinstann And I am perfectly capable of answering any comment; as a matter of fact I did. IT"S PROPAGANDA. You can't substantiate what you have said. IF you would like to I challenge you to list EVERYTHING EVERY person of substance has ever said and then prove to me that all of them are racist.
I never said that any of them were racist, I said the opposite; I said that they were irresponsible for not strongly and instantly denouncing the outside groups that were leaching off of them, and allowing those groups to muddy their immage, message, and agenda.
by the way, you need to look up what propaganda is; even if every word I said is wrong, that doesn't make it propaganda, it makes it a misguided opinion.
uuum, watch my video about the republican party and you can see what I think about President Clinton.
In this case, we aren't talking about some obscure event, we're talking about a large group of people who are trying to coopt a movement, and the leaders of that movement letting them do just that.
fortunately I'm comfortable with what I've concluded about these people, but accusing me of not really having that opinion but just saying whatever makes them look bad sort of defeats the purpose of having this conversation in the first place.
If you're convinced that I'm just making things up in order to make one side look good and the other bad then we can't really discuss anything.
Wow, I wish I had been able to just dismiss my opponent in debate class just the way you did, it would have made everything easier, I wouldn't have to spend any time thinking about the issue or the opposing argument, I could just say that he was making things up and compare him to Nazi's and talk show hosts. Where did you get this knack for debate and argument?
i'm not asking them to take responsibility for anything, You seem to think that I want them to say something to the efect of "We're sorry we're racist and homophobic"; on the contrary, I want them to say "I don't know who these assholes are, but they aren't us and I don't want them coming here."
At the very least, Sara Palin and Michelle Bachman should have said now and in the past, something about this, as well as the people who organize the events such as freedomworks, and CPAC should never have invited, directly invited people like Ryan Sorba in the first place. These people either have direct controll over, at least the booking, and the first two i mentioned have the strongest voice in the movement right now.
Nancy Pelosi told code pink TO THEIR FACES, "you're not my constituents" for God sake, I think the people and groups that I named could say something akin to that.
I didn't say she ran it, i said that she and Bachman were the loudest, most identifiable voices in it.
Neither CPAC nor freedomworks have an expressed or actual commitment to anything of the kind, that doesn't absolve them from a responsibility to exclude, or at the very least denounce the people that they personally invite to their conferences and events.
Sorba has nothing to do with the tea party, he is using the current conservative, anti government snetement in order to legitimize and express his crazy, subversive message that cpac and the conservative movements are giving him a microphone; that's what needs to stop, not the tea party, not the conservative movement; the obliviousness on the part of those movements as to just who are using their name and their platform to push their agenda, and disguise it as something else.
I agree that they should be ignored; and I think we both agree that he and his ilk don't represent any conservative view point what soever. my only point is that CPAC shouldn't have invited him in the first place. Neither CPAC or the conservative movement are responsible for what he says, but they are at least responsible for giving him the mic, and I think they would do well to leave him and his ilk out of it.
@standinstann I don't think anyone is allying themselves with Ryan Sorba.
Do you realize the trap they are setting?
Liberals LOVE making conservatives apologize; they live for it. As they are a bunch of left-wing assholes they hold themselves to no standards. Therefore. they NEVER have to apologize.
It's a useful tool in diminishing any conservative opinion.
It would appear most conservatives have figured out the apology game and just aren't playing.
Contrary to what you think I'm saying, I don't want it to be their funeral; I certainly hope you're right, and i hope that eventually, somebody. somewhere, will stop defining the tea party as a group who doesn't like big government, and insisting that it's "just anyone who shows up" in the same breath.
How do you stand on the wall street banksters stealing the young people's future? Is that even an issue for you? You are ignorantly misrepresenting where most people are coming from. They are not so much against honest government, but croney, bankster government is another issue. Sounds like you are mainly a one issue guy driven by emotion and lacking reason.
To the first part; the banks and the stock market have to be preserved in order for our country to run; that is why the bush administration and the obama administration (two ideoligicaly opposed groups) agreed that they had to be saved.
Second, I am a one issue gyy; my issue is justice.
Bush and Obama are identical. Bush was for war in the Middle East, Obama has increased troops and war theaters in the Middle East. Bush was for bailing out his corrupt croney bankster buddies, Obama is for bailing out his bankster buddies too, and no money is available for main street business. One RepubliCON and on DemicRAT, but they both serve their bankster overlords. Your justice is to destroy the middle class and give it all the fraudulent banksters and corrupt politicians.
The banks & the stock market are all running fraudulent Federal Reserve notes (dollars) that accrue interest for each note printed. With the Fed monetizing the debt, our entire financial structure is made into a massive Ponzi scheme, and we're seeing it come to the same end that all other similar schemes of lesser degrees have naturally come to. It was going to crash regardless, but with the bail outs, the crash will be all the more painful.
Stan, I'm a big fan but... This is really intolerant. You just spent eight minutes going off on people for not agreeing with you, and the only reasons you gave for why they were wrong were misleading and often completely dishonest (or perhaps you're just not a constitutional scholar, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just don't know). There's only so much I can say in this tiny comment box, but seriously, this was just infuriating. I'm still a fan, but this is pretty bad.
I'm pretty much in the same boat as SLagonia. Big fan, and yet Constitutionally...I don't want to say "offended" because you've told me that you cherish it too..."off-put" I guess might work.
I'm worried that I made you afraid of me, and I don't know what to say to that. I could defer you to the Goldwater quote on my channel, but what will THAT assuage...?
I admired your discerning of some issues, if not for others. But hey! I don't agree with everything Jefferson, Adams, or Paine says either...
First off, how can you descriminate against people in large volunteer rallies? Kind of hard really.
Second, as I understand it, Geneva Convention is there to ensure both sides fight fair. If one side does not, then the rules are void. As such, it's not weaseling out. Of course, I'm not too knowledgable on the convention, so correct me here if I'm wrong.
I wouldn't expect any democrat at a rally to qualify every statement they make with "by the way I don't like code pink", but what are these groups doing at CPAC? Not just showing up, but being invited to speak!
(cont'd)...constant skepticism, constant ANIMOSITY is required. Hence the second amendment. Hence a free press. Hence people like the tea partiers.
You may not like my personal views on homosexuality, but you don't have a right to tell me what views I should teach to my children. Nor do I have a right to tell a gay couple how to raise theirs. When someone, uses government to, say, take the money I earned and use it to contribute to THEIR causes, they are MISusing a moral institution.
(continued) And what's its role? When does it act justly? When it provides a reasonable, moral framework for me to exercise my rights to life, liberty, and property. The state of nature is not inherently immoral, but it is amoral, and freedom is restricted to prevent the stronger from dominating the weak, to protect the innocent from those who would violate their rights.
Government is a moral thing when it secures those rights. But because it is made up of people...(cont'd)
Stan, I'm one of those tea partiers, and I'd like to lay out some views myself. I am a conservative and not a libertarian because I do not trust people to act justly in all circumstances--that simply extends to the government, because it is run by people.
Yes, a limited government IS a good thing. The constitution was designed to place limits on the federal government, not give it a license to reach into my home, my family, and tell me how to live or raise my children. (continued)
lol, you equivocate defense of individual rights with the initiation of force by the State. Good job...try getting the basics straight before deriding people who support voluntarism over the gun that you support called the State.
Second of all, you imply that taxes did not cause the financial crisis. Tell me, are you yet another one that seriously thinks that 'deregulation' or 'greed' made this mess? I hope not.
If by "freedom" we mean "the ability to do as one pleases" then you're right to say that any regulation on the part of the government is is a violation of individual right. As it is, that's not what freedom is.
Second; a lot of things contributed to the financial crisis; the kind of robber barron capitolism that contributed to the first great depression, and that was made possible by deregulation was certainly one of those things.
Okay, so now you straw man the libertarian argument. "Freedom' would mean the ability to do as one pleases outside of the initiation of physical force. If you didn't know, the State IS the epitome of force. Any use of force not in defense of someone's rights is an initiation of force.
The State initiates force through it's actions other than when it defends people's rights. I don't see how you cannot comprehend that.
lol, please research the history of the indisutrial revolution instead of relying on the standard mantra of "evil robber barons and monopolies argument". It fails when you look at the evidence.
For example, prices decreased and supply rose when Standard Oil came into the Kerosene market. These 'robber barons' created mountains of wealth that benefited everyone. No actual 'monopoly' has existed outside of State created monopolies like the USPS.
I recommend looking at Austrian Business Cycle Theory, and read books by Von Mises, Reisman, Rand, Hayek, and Rothbard. These men and women are the actual libertarians, not idiots like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity/ Sarah Palin.
Glenn Beck is useful. He at least helped popularize the ACORN scandal (along with Breitbart), and that is a good thing. But he is useful in the same way Keith Olbermann was during the Bush years--both men held government accountable because of their own biases.
They were, and are, lunatics.
I may not like Beck, but I am glad he does what he does. Were my candidate of choice to become president, I'd still want someone, however irrational, to hold him accountable.
Also, good recommendations. I have trouble with Rothbard, etc. because they are close to anarchism. The idea that, for example, we have no right to privacy would even make voyeurism legal. My trouble with Rothbard is one reason I'm not a libertarian.
I respect libertarians, I just think they go too far. There should be certain levity for government to punish potential dangers, and aggression comes in more forms than physical violence.
I agree, and I don't agree with some of Rothbard's claims. An example would be his views on children. He doesn't see a problem with parents neglecting their infants and letting them starve to death.
However, I do see some of the validity of some anarcho-capitalist's views, but I tend to think that minarchy is more practical at this point than market anarchy.
You're right. Those people who believe in freedom and small government don't support economic justice. Neither do I.
Economic justice (or equality) exists at the expense of freedom and goes against the Principle of Liberty. Along with individual freedom comes individual responsibility, and the welfare state has removed any form of incentive to be self-reliant or take that responsibility at all.
In the end you are asserting that the way things are is "better" based on your own philosophy.
The T party has a point of having government spend less money. Our nation is in debt and yes i know we have had deficite spending before, but when nations say we need to use a different curencey other than the dollar to trade oil then we have a problem. The thing is myself and others are afraid if congress continues its unnecessary spending of money in all fields including defense (which is nothing more than congressional and military contractors lobbying for money) then we'll end up in poverty
I mostly agree with you, but I don't think they should lower taxes if the taxes at hand weren't used to make war and instead be used for health care that would be even better than lower taxes right now there is the car-sickness thing that would be over like here in Germany I don't say our government is perfect (far from it) but things like the cooperation of state and church is much better here though we have super-complicated tax regulations and extremist groups won't find as much audience here
Well, what did YOU mean by "cooperation," if any distinction should be made? Here in the states, we got athei-O's and left-wieners howling over state dinners or city councils that are preceded by prayers directly referring to Christ, but demand "cooperation" from Catholic doctors who refuse to direct a pregnant woman to an abortion clinic.
the church does deaconry, helps with social welfare and acts as a moral support to all christians
and they have a few schools
the government does the politics, never mentions Jesus or God in any situation and is glad the church does what it's doing, because it takes weight off their shoulders
also there is no distinction between catholic doctors and atheist doctors, either you're a doctor or not
if the doctor is against abortion, he just tells the woman to ask someone else
The church will do those things anyway, even if the government outlaws compassion. (A TRULY Christian church, anyway) So the issue may be this: What if the national paradigm switched to atheism, and church attendance dropped? How much burden is on the welfare government's shoulders, then? Perhaps the government won't like how little the church "cooperates." They may start enforcing rules of "compassion" where none belongs.
Bottom line, cooperation between church & state hardly ends well.
Taxes already exist as a necessary evil of government. It does not define charity.
Charity is the virtue of a giving nature, and that virtue rests ENTIRELY within the giver, NOT the receiver. If someone is FORCED to give, that's not charity. That's theft.
No. Like I said, taxation is a necessary evil of government. Excessive taxation, however, is an INTOLERABLE evil of government.
Charity is always given. It is never taken. For example, even though we're already taxed, many of us gave freely of our personal money to Haitian relief. This was NOT done because they deserved it, but because we have compassion. Charity always grows from the virtue of the giver, but you can't FORCE a person to be virtuous.
That's the way of the world. Exploitation will never be eliminated. I'm not saying that's right; I'm just saying it would be less right to force the moneyed hands of individuals to satisfy the wants of those with less.
You can't ban people from supporting your causes. You can't stop Eco-terrorists from supporting the Animal rights movement. Right wing philosophy are based on Freedom > Prosperity, I prefer having less taxes so I can choose what I want to do, and I am willing to take a hit to standard of living if I get more choices. If you disagree vote accordingly.
Yeah the Libertarian party and mindset is a little fucked. If you think the government is bad, if the government does everything bad. Then why do you need a small? Honestly, these people need to take their opinion to its logical conclusion.
If you look at the supporters of the Democratic Party you'll find people who think we should put sterilents in the water to control population growth, but that's a minority of people within that group.
That's the problem I have with what you're saying, you seem to be judging the entire Tea Party movement based on a group of people who make up a minority of the movement. The Tea Party movement can't control who comes out and supports them any more than the democrats can with their supporters.
@cetrix1 Yes but the Democratic party typically doesnt buddy up to groups like "code pink" even THEY have sense (or at least a sense of self preservation enough) to stay away from them.
The tea Party Rallies are an open forum for people to come out and protest in a peaceful manner; they have no control on who actually shows up.
The point I'm making is that you can look at any group, any rally and find a FEW bad apples; that's what happens when you have a large group of people get together, a FEW bad apples show up.
What you're doing right now is looking at those FEW bad apples and judging the whole group based on them. That's not a good thing to do.
The federal government should be nothing more than a nationwide clearing house for STATES' governments, since a body politic governs best that governs least. You say government should DO something to fix the errors that it created. The Constitution is relevant today as it was 2 centuries ago in that it restricts government. Saying it should DO a thing abdicates power & responsibility from the individual to a group of humans who're by no means made superior to us by referendum.
@QuartuvLarry wanted to interject that; I think that Jefferson was wrong when he said "goverment which governs best governs least" I think that the oppositte is equally wrong "That government governs best which governs most"; I think the only true statement is that "government governs best which governs most justly". (con't)
The constitution is indeed relevent today, but the means by which we secure the blessings of liberty have changed, and so the way that we govern has changed.
We've seen this government in action, and it's functions are selective at best, and negligible at worst. What I don't get is how anyone could rationalize trusting a band of thieves to police themselves, because I wouldn't trust this administration to sell snow to an arab. They created the problem, and now we expect them to be the solution? That's unacceptable. For one thing, we don't need more regulations because enough of them are already in place. Problem is those regs aren't being enforced.
Poliecing them selves goes to seperation of powers, that's why we have them. As for trusting them to fix the problem; first of all, "they" are "us", second of all, in sted we should trust... nothing to fix the problem?
I'm thinking mostly of the incompetent SEC that managed to capture Eliot Spitzer for a $5000 in regards to a hooker, but somehow missed an increase from $100 billion to about $62 trillion in the credit default swap market.
And yes, "they" are SUPPOSED to be "us" but it became apparent, when last year's town hall meetings didn't turn out to be the love-in fests politicians expected from their constituents, that there is a very real disconnect between them and We the People.
There is a disconnect between us and them, but that stems from the fact that the average person today doens't know how government works; they seem to think that we elect a monarch every 4 to 8 years.
i think that means that we ought to set better universal standards; not just dismantle federal standards and leave them up to the arbitrary will of the states.
Why not? Canada has no federalized educational institution. Their schools are managed at the provincial level, and their scholastic numbers are better than ours.
Canada doens't have a large sector of the population who would like to teach creationism in their schools. Imagine a south in which the kids are tought that the earth is 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs and man coexisted, and that evolution is a lie promoted by atheists.
I garentee you that this would happen in quite a few states if not for federal standards.
that is just one relevent example of the need for universal standards.
I doubt that, even were that the case, it would open a can of worms any worse than what we've already got going on with our poor academic scores. One dogmatic view won't necessarily be a detriment to all the other ranges of scholastic acuity.
Well, I can see where you're coming from regarding a standard of education. Probably disputing that on the grounds that government should stay out of the classroom might be like comparing apples to oranges. But something has to be done about the NEA. Being unable to fire crap teachers because they belong to a union is totally unfair to kids' education.
This is slightly different from what you were discussing but I've never understood why you can't agree with evolution AND believe in God. My personal opinion has always been that Evolution is the means not the reason. I don't see a reason why there isn't room for God in evolution.
As for whom should fix the problems, it is definitely going to have to be we who do so. The first step towards that end may be for states to start printing their own money, and backing it up with real collateral. (precious metals and the like)
Revamp our industrial and manufacturing base (could take a while)
Cutting government spending is a must.
This stuff is just off the top of my head. There are plenty of guys with good ideas out there.
But we DEFINITELY need to drain the political swamp!
This is what I was talking bout when I said that these people think that we're 50 colinies. We should cut spending, you're quite right about that, but just abolishing the federal government is not the answer.
I didn't say we should abolish the federal government. It has it's uses, of course. But that is where spending cuts need to take place FIRST. And state minting can help relieve the pain of the inevitable collapse of the dollar. Getting with local communities is how we're going to survive, rather than depending on detached politicians way off in DC.
I agree with you about reducing spending, but we've been spending our of control for a century and the problems we face today are relatively new.
I would like to see a reduction in unnecessary government spending, but i think that's a seperate issue from the role of government; weather it is the role of government to spend at all, and weather the govrnment should be spending as much as they do are two different issues.
I don't think the problems we're facing are necessarily new, though. I think they've been suppressed and flowing like an undercurrent for the past century. And with these symptoms, I sometimes can't help but consider that when JFK tried to have the government print its own money instead of borrowing it from the federal reserve, he conveniently got assassinated. I'm not going to go conspira-wacko here, but I am saying that some of these problems aren't as new as we think.
In fact the sole purpose of the constitution WAS to protect the American people from it's government, and since the constitution lays out the government, it's ENTIRELY REASONABLE to say the constitution exists to protect people from the constitution.
@hossrex Again, if that were the case the constitution would have simply abolished its self, and the only amendment to the non existant constitution would read "congress shall make no law"
You don'e create a unifying document with clear objectives for the role of government to provide certain things if your overriding objective is to provent there being a government in the first place; you simply outlaw the creation of one. (con't)
Secondly, you are absolutly 100% dead wrong when you say that "the sole purpose of the constitution WAS to protect the American people from it's government"
The purpose of the constitution was in fact to place the power of the government in the habds of the people so that they didn't have to be protected form it.
Because of the constitution, the people of this country are the ruling class; the only logical end of your analysis is that we need to be protected from our SELVES.
Haha , what a joke. If the people of this country were the ruling class , which you would not want to have because a democracy, or mobocracy as I liked to call it, can be just as bad as an oligarchy. Anyway , if "the people" made the decision in government rather than a select group of individuals, non-property owners and women would have been initially allowed to vote . You should not want "the people" to have large concentrations of power because they can trample on indivisual rights
"if that were the case the constitution would have simply abolished its self, and the only amendment to the non existant constitution would read "congress shall make no law""
Nonsense. The people need a small governing body to do a few small things, as are specifically laid out in the constitution, and the constitution exists to make sure the Federal government doesn't abuse its power.
You're making a strawman here by acting like anyone wants "no law".
Actually Stan, the social conservatives do not dominate the tea party in any real way. they try to attach themselves to the movement, but ask real tea party activists, and they'll tell you they have no real influence in the movement.
You said that we have become a more just society because of larger government? I don't think so. Correlation does not imply causation. We have become more just because our morality has improved and we have become more interconnected, thanks to the internet. There were times when the government grew but discrimination against minorities and immigrants was still very rampant. The US was a world power yet it sterilize incoming immigrants and detained the japanese during WW2
It should not be the federal government job to regulate a business if it performs bad; For one , The federal government is no more benovolent than individuals or groups of indivudals operating in the Free market. So why are they seen as more legitimate than individuals in the private market; It was the creation of the federal reserve that cause easy access to credit which in turn was responsible for the Great depression , because politicians were able print money at their whim
I agree that it is not the role of the government to regulate a private buisiness if it preforms badly. It is the role of government to regulate buisiness in order to garentee an equality of oppertunity and of conditions for the people of this country.
BTW, Printing mass amounts of money causes inflation not resession and certainly not a great depression; the great depression was causes in part by the stock market crash where capitolism was essentially collapsing under its own weight.
The irony is, we eventualy had to enact socialistic measures to fix that and keep it from happening again (con't)
This isnt directed at you, just a point about the webumentary "zeitgist" (yeah I know i didnt spell it right, what else is new :P
The result of the great depression was that we had to figure out a way to distribute purchasing power to a wide sector of the population in order to fix the problem which lead to more socialistic measures; not to greater liberties for big corperations. they had to make sure that we didn't simply have over production and under consumption.
There have been various economic boombs and busts before and the economy was quickly able to require, much notably in the late 19th century. If capitalism was the reason for the great depression, then why were there not any previous great depressions before? Commercial banks that had previous poor lending histories were able to have easy access to credit, because of the largely expanded money supply created by the fed. incompetent banks would have access to credit if it were not for the FED.
Capitolism in and of its self was nt responsible, you're quight right to say that have been economic booms and busts in the past. It was the kind of robberbarron capitolism of the era that was responsible (in part) not capitolism its self.
incidently, it is exactly that kind of robber barron capitolism that almost contributed to another great depression; but that's the subject of another video.
Lastly, I think there's some truth to your complaint about the fed, and the ability to arbitrarily lower or increase interest rates; that is one thing we agree on; though we may not agree on the solution.
@Syncdev No, the Great depression was prolong because of government intervention. The federal reserve in the twenties set low interests rate which caused inflation followed by an economic boom , which made borrowing and buying assets really cheap. In the late twenties, interest rates were set really high by the federal reserve , and subsequently the caused the crash. Google the federal reserve caused the great depression and you will find that their is much debate between ecnomists about this
@pentazoid111 As soon as the gov't changed from a gold standard to a fiat system (where they could use monetary policy to stimulate the economy) the US average income of citizens rose almost immediately.
Oh please. the fiat system is the reason why this country has become wealthy , then zimbawe would be a very wealthy countries. The fiat system is the reason why both the country as a whole and individuals citizens are drowning in debt. The fiat money system is the main reason why americans in general lacked the incentive to save their money.
You are absolutely correct but the main downside of a gold or silver backed system is that it becomes very difficult to get out of recessions and they become depressions like this current one we have now (although this one is hanging around because of rolling over bonds, and irresponsible interest rates from the FREE MARKET). Continued in further comment
(continued) But I think that as long as we keep an eye on the gov't deficit and keep interest rates comfortable that we wouldn't have an 11 trillion dollar national debt, and the main downfall of the fiat system can be avoided whereas the main downfall of the gold/silver backed system cannot be avoided no matter what unless you can propose something I've not heard before.
Stan, The federal government was not created with the intent of forming into a nanny state; It was not created to provide education, healthcare, and other forms of welfare for to citizens because that requires coercing people into providing these services at the point of a gun and nobody likes that; The services such as education and healthcare would be created in the free-market so there is no need for the federal government to force people to create such services.
First of all, education is not welfare, second; providing education and helthcare is not the same as being a nanny state; it is providing that which every human being NEEDS in order to persue happyness.
education and healthcare ARE created in the free market; theyre called insurance companies and private schools. Having a government option for those who can't aford them doesn't change that one iota.
Welfare is when the government provides aid because of a suppose need; The free market would not leave the poor behind; The Free market does an adequate job of tproviding other services to the poor and it will and has done a fine job of providing the poor a free education; The internet. Universities are offering their courses online for free on youtube and elsewhier, There are digital library projects underway to make all books available to the masses, all actions of the free market
The free market might not leave poor people behind, or it might; the free market does not set universal standards for its self; it is subject to the arbitrary will of the consumer and the fickle confidence of the masses. We as a society are perfectly within our rights to set standards and enforce them through our laws; thats what a government by of and for the people IS.
Ron Paul (for example) is right to say that we could replace every federal agency; from education to air safety, with private ones; his mistake is not accounting for the fact that there is no guarantee (under a non-system like that) that those agencies would have uniform standards unless there is a blanket national standard of quality for them; in which case, they may as well be federal agencies anyway.
Not true. the seeds of the teaparty movement were implanted by libertarian leaning candidate Ron Paul and he has been a harsh critique of our foreign policy overe seas and near land , and he seems like one of the few politicians who want to drastically reduced the role of the military around the world, rather than just remove the troops from iraq. What candidate are you referring too?
My initial reaction to the tea parties was "what are these people even protesting" they always said we want lower taxes we want our leaders to follow the constitution!" yet they always seemed vague. And besides that, to my knowledge the Obama administration has not made any significant tax increases. I also thought that it was a hell of a time to start protesting, its not like we had an administration that was raping the constitution for 8 years.
What I meant was; you may very well be right in your assertion that the teapartiers have been corrupted, but there are better ways of arguing than using strawman arguments, as implied. As far as I know you attributed extemist viewpoints found in the fringes to great groups of people. I don't think they're that bad at the moment, I am also willing to give some credence to the opinions they starteted out with.
what I'm suggesting here is that the Tea Party is carrying parasites that are eating away at what might be a ligitimate message.
In the second part I gave my opinion on what I percieve that ligitimate message to be; but the first part was an attempt to distinguish between the crazies and everybody else; and admonish the movement for leting them in (or not being aware of them) just because they say "we don't like taxes either".
"what I'm suggesting here is that the Tea Party is carrying parasites that are eating away at what might be a ligitimate message."
If your talking about a leading voice, then I would appreciate names. But like I said before as far as "parasites" as i said before, you cant prevent people from coming.
without meaning to sound supportive of meaningless endeavours - the tea party movement would actually be useful in australia: we have no bill of rights down here - the government has an unjust amount of power over its citizens, and we can't do shit about it.. reducing the power of the government, to be able to be overthrown by the people if need be, would be a good thing in a situation like this.
I actually may ending up bringing the points in this video in my history class, because tomorrow I'm supposed to talk about the recent tea party in class. I have a feeling that half of the people in my class don't know about the tea party at all, and I would like to bring up the points about the fake "tea party"
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait first comment in a year
255ad 3 months ago
If "stan's vlog" is so ugly, can't you just use something like "stan's thoughts"?
Bassbait 1 year ago
Hey shit for brains. THERE IS NO MEMBERSHIP TO THE TEA PARTY.
DUMB ASS
That's like me accusing you of being a murderer just because you and Ted Kennedy share the same ideals.
Way to be un-biased. You Fuck.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
You completely missed the point, and i don't think you could possibly have watched the video. I plainly said that the subversive groups didn't represent the tea party, that means (contrary to your defensive comment), they DON'T share the same ideology.
There not being a sign up sheet doesn't prohibit anybody from denouncing the crazy, racist groups who use this movement to push their agenda. I'm still waiting for the supporters (including you) to denounce them.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Oh I got the point. I and almost everyone else denounce this kind of stupidity.
Although it sure didn't stop you from doing an eight minute hit-piece trying paint everyone in the tea party with the same brush. And of course everyone knows as soon as it's denounced you will accuse everyone of 'a guilty conscience'.
You are an excellent propagandist, Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
You could work for MSNBC
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
To the first part, I've never heard a single person of substance do so.
To the second, I don't know what kind of comment that invites; it seems as though when I make a comment that you don't know how to answer you call it propaganda and dismiss it, I don't know what MSNBC has to do with anything, and I guarantee you, I'm better looking than Goebbels, I'm more fun to be around, and i tell funnier jokes.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann I am a person of substance and I do. So does Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and every other 'person of substance' I can think of.
If you never listen to these people how would you know? Not knowing certainly doesn't stop you from making the asinine statement that NONE of them have denounced it.
How many members of the environmental movement denounced the una-bomber? I didn't hear a single person of substance do it. They must ALL be raving lunatic terrorist.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@standinstann And I am perfectly capable of answering any comment; as a matter of fact I did. IT"S PROPAGANDA. You can't substantiate what you have said. IF you would like to I challenge you to list EVERYTHING EVERY person of substance has ever said and then prove to me that all of them are racist.
If you can't then it is propaganda.
You could be Robert Gibbs.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
I never said that any of them were racist, I said the opposite; I said that they were irresponsible for not strongly and instantly denouncing the outside groups that were leaching off of them, and allowing those groups to muddy their immage, message, and agenda.
by the way, you need to look up what propaganda is; even if every word I said is wrong, that doesn't make it propaganda, it makes it a misguided opinion.
standinstann 1 year ago
Propaganda is not the act of disagreeing with you.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann And I said they did, you weren't listening.
When did you ever apologize for Bill Clinton's rape of Juanita Broaddrick?
I think you are completely irresponsible for not strongly and instantly denouncing this man. I mean he was your president.
And actually if every word you say is wrong and you know, it's not opinion, it's a lie.
If you knowingly promote that lie, as your video does, it's propaganda.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
uuum, watch my video about the republican party and you can see what I think about President Clinton.
In this case, we aren't talking about some obscure event, we're talking about a large group of people who are trying to coopt a movement, and the leaders of that movement letting them do just that.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
fortunately I'm comfortable with what I've concluded about these people, but accusing me of not really having that opinion but just saying whatever makes them look bad sort of defeats the purpose of having this conversation in the first place.
If you're convinced that I'm just making things up in order to make one side look good and the other bad then we can't really discuss anything.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Well we agree you are making stuff up.
But as long as you are comfortable; don't left facts get in the way.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
Wow, I wish I had been able to just dismiss my opponent in debate class just the way you did, it would have made everything easier, I wouldn't have to spend any time thinking about the issue or the opposing argument, I could just say that he was making things up and compare him to Nazi's and talk show hosts. Where did you get this knack for debate and argument?
*rolls eyes" lets be real.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann What you did is worse. You somehow are demanding a bunch of people take responsibility for a bunch of other people in a public rally.
I wonder how many random people's behavior I can hold you responsible for.
I think the word I am looking for in disingenuous.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
i'm not asking them to take responsibility for anything, You seem to think that I want them to say something to the efect of "We're sorry we're racist and homophobic"; on the contrary, I want them to say "I don't know who these assholes are, but they aren't us and I don't want them coming here."
standinstann 1 year ago
Take the Pelosi/code pink incident for example; Pelosi wasn't taking responsibility for code pinks bat shit lunacy, she told them to fuck off home.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Oh, and can you provide the name and address of the leader of the tea party movement?
Since you are fixated on them apologizing, you must know who they are.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
At the very least, Sara Palin and Michelle Bachman should have said now and in the past, something about this, as well as the people who organize the events such as freedomworks, and CPAC should never have invited, directly invited people like Ryan Sorba in the first place. These people either have direct controll over, at least the booking, and the first two i mentioned have the strongest voice in the movement right now.
standinstann 1 year ago
Nancy Pelosi told code pink TO THEIR FACES, "you're not my constituents" for God sake, I think the people and groups that I named could say something akin to that.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Sara Palin doesn't run the Tea Party. Neither does Michelle Bachman.
Can you provide the sections of the charter for CPAC and Freedom works which outline their commitments to racism?
If not you are talking out your ass,
And I'm not defending Ryan Sorba; he's an asshole.
But I don't understand what a religious homophobe has to do with a tea party protest...
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
I didn't say she ran it, i said that she and Bachman were the loudest, most identifiable voices in it.
Neither CPAC nor freedomworks have an expressed or actual commitment to anything of the kind, that doesn't absolve them from a responsibility to exclude, or at the very least denounce the people that they personally invite to their conferences and events.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
Sorba has nothing to do with the tea party, he is using the current conservative, anti government snetement in order to legitimize and express his crazy, subversive message that cpac and the conservative movements are giving him a microphone; that's what needs to stop, not the tea party, not the conservative movement; the obliviousness on the part of those movements as to just who are using their name and their platform to push their agenda, and disguise it as something else.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Then why did you bring it up?
See my previous comment for the reason the Sorba's of the world should just be ignored.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
I agree that they should be ignored; and I think we both agree that he and his ilk don't represent any conservative view point what soever. my only point is that CPAC shouldn't have invited him in the first place. Neither CPAC or the conservative movement are responsible for what he says, but they are at least responsible for giving him the mic, and I think they would do well to leave him and his ilk out of it.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann It was my understanding that he was supposed to be speaking on a different topic.
I find it difficult to believe this line was in the program...
....
2:30 Natural Law. Ryan Sorba comments on faggots and mocks those who support them.
....
Conservatives do dumb things; but that's just plain stupid.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
It probably wasn't, but that's why you don't ally your self with people like him, JUST because he happens to be against the Obama administration.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann I don't think anyone is allying themselves with Ryan Sorba.
Do you realize the trap they are setting?
Liberals LOVE making conservatives apologize; they live for it. As they are a bunch of left-wing assholes they hold themselves to no standards. Therefore. they NEVER have to apologize.
It's a useful tool in diminishing any conservative opinion.
It would appear most conservatives have figured out the apology game and just aren't playing.
Eventually, I hope you will too.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
I'm not asking anyone to apologize for anything, I'm asking them not to invite certain people and groups, and to denounce certain rhetoric.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann As I stated I doubt anyone was invited under those premises.
I certainly don't think Ryan Sorba is coming back soon.
If they do invite him back; then it's their funeral.
There are no 'invitations' to tea party protest. Anyone can show up; which was my original point.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
Contrary to what you think I'm saying, I don't want it to be their funeral; I certainly hope you're right, and i hope that eventually, somebody. somewhere, will stop defining the tea party as a group who doesn't like big government, and insisting that it's "just anyone who shows up" in the same breath.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann ??? The group doesn't like big government; that's is the point of the protest.
What did you think it was about?
And anyone can show. How could these to things be mutually exclusive?
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@standinstann You don't see a problem with conservatives constantly apologizing for miscreant idiots and nut bars?
You don't think the left will use that to diminish their position on everything?
IT'S WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS.
I'm glad most conservatives are starting to ignore such stupidity and see it for what it is.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
just out of curiosity, how much hate mail did you get for this?
DemonofHell48 1 year ago
@DemonofHell48
Not as much as you might think; most people just had an honest debate with me about it.
standinstann 1 year ago
dude the act and sound exatly like matthew its so awesome i keep forgetting your not him
justiniscoolohyea 1 year ago
how about "stann's thoughts" thats sounds like a good description if it aye?
fathersky24688642 2 years ago
How do you stand on the wall street banksters stealing the young people's future? Is that even an issue for you? You are ignorantly misrepresenting where most people are coming from. They are not so much against honest government, but croney, bankster government is another issue. Sounds like you are mainly a one issue guy driven by emotion and lacking reason.
Gdaiva1 2 years ago
To the first part; the banks and the stock market have to be preserved in order for our country to run; that is why the bush administration and the obama administration (two ideoligicaly opposed groups) agreed that they had to be saved.
Second, I am a one issue gyy; my issue is justice.
standinstann 2 years ago
Bush and Obama are identical. Bush was for war in the Middle East, Obama has increased troops and war theaters in the Middle East. Bush was for bailing out his corrupt croney bankster buddies, Obama is for bailing out his bankster buddies too, and no money is available for main street business. One RepubliCON and on DemicRAT, but they both serve their bankster overlords. Your justice is to destroy the middle class and give it all the fraudulent banksters and corrupt politicians.
Gdaiva1 2 years ago
The banks & the stock market are all running fraudulent Federal Reserve notes (dollars) that accrue interest for each note printed. With the Fed monetizing the debt, our entire financial structure is made into a massive Ponzi scheme, and we're seeing it come to the same end that all other similar schemes of lesser degrees have naturally come to. It was going to crash regardless, but with the bail outs, the crash will be all the more painful.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
Stan, I'm a big fan but... This is really intolerant. You just spent eight minutes going off on people for not agreeing with you, and the only reasons you gave for why they were wrong were misleading and often completely dishonest (or perhaps you're just not a constitutional scholar, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just don't know). There's only so much I can say in this tiny comment box, but seriously, this was just infuriating. I'm still a fan, but this is pretty bad.
SLagonia 2 years ago
I'm sorry you feel that way. these vlog things are different from my reviews; I'm usually a little more opinionated, and a little more overt.
standinstann 2 years ago
I'm pretty much in the same boat as SLagonia. Big fan, and yet Constitutionally...I don't want to say "offended" because you've told me that you cherish it too..."off-put" I guess might work.
I'm worried that I made you afraid of me, and I don't know what to say to that. I could defer you to the Goldwater quote on my channel, but what will THAT assuage...?
I admired your discerning of some issues, if not for others. But hey! I don't agree with everything Jefferson, Adams, or Paine says either...
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
First off, how can you descriminate against people in large volunteer rallies? Kind of hard really.
Second, as I understand it, Geneva Convention is there to ensure both sides fight fair. If one side does not, then the rules are void. As such, it's not weaseling out. Of course, I'm not too knowledgable on the convention, so correct me here if I'm wrong.
Sines314 2 years ago
I wouldn't expect any democrat at a rally to qualify every statement they make with "by the way I don't like code pink", but what are these groups doing at CPAC? Not just showing up, but being invited to speak!
standinstann 2 years ago
(cont'd)...constant skepticism, constant ANIMOSITY is required. Hence the second amendment. Hence a free press. Hence people like the tea partiers.
You may not like my personal views on homosexuality, but you don't have a right to tell me what views I should teach to my children. Nor do I have a right to tell a gay couple how to raise theirs. When someone, uses government to, say, take the money I earned and use it to contribute to THEIR causes, they are MISusing a moral institution.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
(continued) And what's its role? When does it act justly? When it provides a reasonable, moral framework for me to exercise my rights to life, liberty, and property. The state of nature is not inherently immoral, but it is amoral, and freedom is restricted to prevent the stronger from dominating the weak, to protect the innocent from those who would violate their rights.
Government is a moral thing when it secures those rights. But because it is made up of people...(cont'd)
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
Stan, I'm one of those tea partiers, and I'd like to lay out some views myself. I am a conservative and not a libertarian because I do not trust people to act justly in all circumstances--that simply extends to the government, because it is run by people.
Yes, a limited government IS a good thing. The constitution was designed to place limits on the federal government, not give it a license to reach into my home, my family, and tell me how to live or raise my children. (continued)
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
lol, you equivocate defense of individual rights with the initiation of force by the State. Good job...try getting the basics straight before deriding people who support voluntarism over the gun that you support called the State.
Second of all, you imply that taxes did not cause the financial crisis. Tell me, are you yet another one that seriously thinks that 'deregulation' or 'greed' made this mess? I hope not.
You should study economics. It would do you good.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
If by "freedom" we mean "the ability to do as one pleases" then you're right to say that any regulation on the part of the government is is a violation of individual right. As it is, that's not what freedom is.
Second; a lot of things contributed to the financial crisis; the kind of robber barron capitolism that contributed to the first great depression, and that was made possible by deregulation was certainly one of those things.
standinstann 2 years ago
Okay, so now you straw man the libertarian argument. "Freedom' would mean the ability to do as one pleases outside of the initiation of physical force. If you didn't know, the State IS the epitome of force. Any use of force not in defense of someone's rights is an initiation of force.
The State initiates force through it's actions other than when it defends people's rights. I don't see how you cannot comprehend that.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
lol, please research the history of the indisutrial revolution instead of relying on the standard mantra of "evil robber barons and monopolies argument". It fails when you look at the evidence.
For example, prices decreased and supply rose when Standard Oil came into the Kerosene market. These 'robber barons' created mountains of wealth that benefited everyone. No actual 'monopoly' has existed outside of State created monopolies like the USPS.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
I recommend looking at Austrian Business Cycle Theory, and read books by Von Mises, Reisman, Rand, Hayek, and Rothbard. These men and women are the actual libertarians, not idiots like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity/ Sarah Palin.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
Glenn Beck is useful. He at least helped popularize the ACORN scandal (along with Breitbart), and that is a good thing. But he is useful in the same way Keith Olbermann was during the Bush years--both men held government accountable because of their own biases.
They were, and are, lunatics.
I may not like Beck, but I am glad he does what he does. Were my candidate of choice to become president, I'd still want someone, however irrational, to hold him accountable.
Free speech at its best.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
I agree that more voices out there is always a good thing. And yes, it was good that Glenn Beck exposed ACORN as the lunatics that they really are.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
@rock: I think we're on the same page then.
Also, good recommendations. I have trouble with Rothbard, etc. because they are close to anarchism. The idea that, for example, we have no right to privacy would even make voyeurism legal. My trouble with Rothbard is one reason I'm not a libertarian.
I respect libertarians, I just think they go too far. There should be certain levity for government to punish potential dangers, and aggression comes in more forms than physical violence.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
I agree, and I don't agree with some of Rothbard's claims. An example would be his views on children. He doesn't see a problem with parents neglecting their infants and letting them starve to death.
However, I do see some of the validity of some anarcho-capitalist's views, but I tend to think that minarchy is more practical at this point than market anarchy.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
Great vid Stan, the tea party movement has gone way out of hand.
o2theh 2 years ago
You're right. Those people who believe in freedom and small government don't support economic justice. Neither do I.
Economic justice (or equality) exists at the expense of freedom and goes against the Principle of Liberty. Along with individual freedom comes individual responsibility, and the welfare state has removed any form of incentive to be self-reliant or take that responsibility at all.
In the end you are asserting that the way things are is "better" based on your own philosophy.
sorienor 2 years ago
The T party has a point of having government spend less money. Our nation is in debt and yes i know we have had deficite spending before, but when nations say we need to use a different curencey other than the dollar to trade oil then we have a problem. The thing is myself and others are afraid if congress continues its unnecessary spending of money in all fields including defense (which is nothing more than congressional and military contractors lobbying for money) then we'll end up in poverty
shots151 2 years ago
Youre like the first american ive ever heard to openly challenge "the founders" and their ideas.
Glad to see someones capable of rational thought when it comes to that declaration. Ive bin missing that.
Netrom07 2 years ago
We also need to get rid of, or severely reform CPS, because they've become a legalized child trafficking cartel.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
Great hearing your thoughts again.
typeNtardis 2 years ago
Audio blog is simply a podcast! I know using youtube for podcast, but...
guruyaya 2 years ago
notpointed 2 years ago
Quick question, notpointed: How can there be a separation of church and state if there is a cooperation of church and state?
Just food for thought.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
okay, just so we're clear, what exactly do you mean by cooperation? deaconry?
notpointed 2 years ago
Well, what did YOU mean by "cooperation," if any distinction should be made? Here in the states, we got athei-O's and left-wieners howling over state dinners or city councils that are preceded by prayers directly referring to Christ, but demand "cooperation" from Catholic doctors who refuse to direct a pregnant woman to an abortion clinic.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
by cooperation I mean:
the church does deaconry, helps with social welfare and acts as a moral support to all christians
and they have a few schools
the government does the politics, never mentions Jesus or God in any situation and is glad the church does what it's doing, because it takes weight off their shoulders
also there is no distinction between catholic doctors and atheist doctors, either you're a doctor or not
if the doctor is against abortion, he just tells the woman to ask someone else
notpointed 2 years ago
The church will do those things anyway, even if the government outlaws compassion. (A TRULY Christian church, anyway) So the issue may be this: What if the national paradigm switched to atheism, and church attendance dropped? How much burden is on the welfare government's shoulders, then? Perhaps the government won't like how little the church "cooperates." They may start enforcing rules of "compassion" where none belongs.
Bottom line, cooperation between church & state hardly ends well.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
the paradigm isn't atheism it's non-religious
universal you could say
and how does church attendance influence the welfare?
they get their money whether you go to the church or not through the church taxes
so as long as the government doesn't say the church is bad it's all well
notpointed 2 years ago
Church taxes? Is there perhaps LESS of a separation of church & state in Germany than there is here in America?
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
well except for the church taxes (which you only have to pay if you are a registered christian)
the church really has nothing to do with the state ('cept for the things I said earlier)
and the church taxes are only collected along with the other (normal) taxes because it's more convenient and easier that way
aren't there church taxes in the USA?
if not, how does the church get its money?
notpointed 2 years ago
Registered Christian?! Do you actually have to pay taxes for being a Christian?!
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
you do it voluntarily, otherwise you would have un-registered, right?
but how does the US church get its money if not through taxes?
notpointed 2 years ago
Tithing from attendees. And they're tax exempt, so they have enough money to open food pantries or soup kitchens.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
but that means every Christian has to go to the church every sunday or they wouldn't get enough money
that's cruel
"Come to the church on Sunday or these poor innocent children will starve because we don't have enough money"
notpointed 2 years ago
What? As opposed to FORCED charity? Do you actually believe "forced" charity even exists?
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
yeah, it exists, it's called taxes
I mean where else does the money come from that the state uses for its charity projects?
notpointed 2 years ago
Taxes already exist as a necessary evil of government. It does not define charity.
Charity is the virtue of a giving nature, and that virtue rests ENTIRELY within the giver, NOT the receiver. If someone is FORCED to give, that's not charity. That's theft.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
so the government is stealing from us?
I know that is a popular opinion but that's not what it is
sure some people (politicians) get rich with it and wars are fought with it but also good things are done
if taxes didn't exist most of the people woulldn't bother giving any money for the sake of charity
we'd need another Robin Hood
notpointed 2 years ago
No. Like I said, taxation is a necessary evil of government. Excessive taxation, however, is an INTOLERABLE evil of government.
Charity is always given. It is never taken. For example, even though we're already taxed, many of us gave freely of our personal money to Haitian relief. This was NOT done because they deserved it, but because we have compassion. Charity always grows from the virtue of the giver, but you can't FORCE a person to be virtuous.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
I agree with you, but most people are both greedy and charitable
they give money to Haiti but in their freetime they buy cheap imported products, supporting the exploitation of workers in certain areas
also they work mostly for their own profit and several don't care about anyone else in the process
I'd say the supposed charity is necessary and beneficial but also naive
notpointed 2 years ago
That's the way of the world. Exploitation will never be eliminated. I'm not saying that's right; I'm just saying it would be less right to force the moneyed hands of individuals to satisfy the wants of those with less.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
that is why there is freedom of religion in germany
you don't have to pay the church taxes
you can still go to the church even when you're not registered
it is purely voluntarily
notpointed 2 years ago
Yes, agreed. I wish your people Godspeed in the coming years.
God save us all...
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
uh, thanks
same to you
Dominus Vobiscum
notpointed 2 years ago
You can't ban people from supporting your causes. You can't stop Eco-terrorists from supporting the Animal rights movement. Right wing philosophy are based on Freedom > Prosperity, I prefer having less taxes so I can choose what I want to do, and I am willing to take a hit to standard of living if I get more choices. If you disagree vote accordingly.
thecommentermaker 2 years ago
You make some well-put points, but your argument is purely directed at extremists.
I'm conservative, but I don't want us to have some impotent government that cannot help its people.
Nevertheless I do want less goverment influence in our daily lives. I want less red tape when people try to start businesses or other such matters.
Our government is bloating itself and diverting our taxes to fill more of its bloat.
I don't want no goverment, I want less government.
marscaleb 2 years ago
Yeah the Libertarian party and mindset is a little fucked. If you think the government is bad, if the government does everything bad. Then why do you need a small? Honestly, these people need to take their opinion to its logical conclusion.
DissentingDogLevi 2 years ago
If you look at the supporters of the Democratic Party you'll find people who think we should put sterilents in the water to control population growth, but that's a minority of people within that group.
That's the problem I have with what you're saying, you seem to be judging the entire Tea Party movement based on a group of people who make up a minority of the movement. The Tea Party movement can't control who comes out and supports them any more than the democrats can with their supporters.
cetrix1 2 years ago
@cetrix1 Yes but the Democratic party typically doesnt buddy up to groups like "code pink" even THEY have sense (or at least a sense of self preservation enough) to stay away from them.
standinstann 2 years ago
'THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY DO'
The tea Party Rallies are an open forum for people to come out and protest in a peaceful manner; they have no control on who actually shows up.
The point I'm making is that you can look at any group, any rally and find a FEW bad apples; that's what happens when you have a large group of people get together, a FEW bad apples show up.
What you're doing right now is looking at those FEW bad apples and judging the whole group based on them. That's not a good thing to do.
cetrix1 2 years ago
The federal government should be nothing more than a nationwide clearing house for STATES' governments, since a body politic governs best that governs least. You say government should DO something to fix the errors that it created. The Constitution is relevant today as it was 2 centuries ago in that it restricts government. Saying it should DO a thing abdicates power & responsibility from the individual to a group of humans who're by no means made superior to us by referendum.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
@QuartuvLarry wanted to interject that; I think that Jefferson was wrong when he said "goverment which governs best governs least" I think that the oppositte is equally wrong "That government governs best which governs most"; I think the only true statement is that "government governs best which governs most justly". (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
The constitution is indeed relevent today, but the means by which we secure the blessings of liberty have changed, and so the way that we govern has changed.
standinstann 2 years ago
We've seen this government in action, and it's functions are selective at best, and negligible at worst. What I don't get is how anyone could rationalize trusting a band of thieves to police themselves, because I wouldn't trust this administration to sell snow to an arab. They created the problem, and now we expect them to be the solution? That's unacceptable. For one thing, we don't need more regulations because enough of them are already in place. Problem is those regs aren't being enforced.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
Poliecing them selves goes to seperation of powers, that's why we have them. As for trusting them to fix the problem; first of all, "they" are "us", second of all, in sted we should trust... nothing to fix the problem?
standinstann 2 years ago
I'm thinking mostly of the incompetent SEC that managed to capture Eliot Spitzer for a $5000 in regards to a hooker, but somehow missed an increase from $100 billion to about $62 trillion in the credit default swap market.
And yes, "they" are SUPPOSED to be "us" but it became apparent, when last year's town hall meetings didn't turn out to be the love-in fests politicians expected from their constituents, that there is a very real disconnect between them and We the People.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
There is a disconnect between us and them, but that stems from the fact that the average person today doens't know how government works; they seem to think that we elect a monarch every 4 to 8 years.
standinstann 2 years ago
You're right. Too many people DON'T understand how government works. Which means we should also bring the school system down to the state level.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
i think that means that we ought to set better universal standards; not just dismantle federal standards and leave them up to the arbitrary will of the states.
standinstann 2 years ago
Why not? Canada has no federalized educational institution. Their schools are managed at the provincial level, and their scholastic numbers are better than ours.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
Canada doens't have a large sector of the population who would like to teach creationism in their schools. Imagine a south in which the kids are tought that the earth is 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs and man coexisted, and that evolution is a lie promoted by atheists.
I garentee you that this would happen in quite a few states if not for federal standards.
that is just one relevent example of the need for universal standards.
standinstann 2 years ago
I doubt that, even were that the case, it would open a can of worms any worse than what we've already got going on with our poor academic scores. One dogmatic view won't necessarily be a detriment to all the other ranges of scholastic acuity.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
I think it would be worse; If given a tossup between wrong information and no information, I'll take no information.
I would like to see a uniform standard of quality education, i think that would be suficient to solve the problem
standinstann 2 years ago
Well, I can see where you're coming from regarding a standard of education. Probably disputing that on the grounds that government should stay out of the classroom might be like comparing apples to oranges. But something has to be done about the NEA. Being unable to fire crap teachers because they belong to a union is totally unfair to kids' education.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
This is slightly different from what you were discussing but I've never understood why you can't agree with evolution AND believe in God. My personal opinion has always been that Evolution is the means not the reason. I don't see a reason why there isn't room for God in evolution.
hattrickk15 2 years ago
thanks for being able to get both things together, few people can
maybe he just doesn't believe in god and just happens to agree with evolution, too
it doesn't have to be related
notpointed 2 years ago
As for whom should fix the problems, it is definitely going to have to be we who do so. The first step towards that end may be for states to start printing their own money, and backing it up with real collateral. (precious metals and the like)
Revamp our industrial and manufacturing base (could take a while)
Cutting government spending is a must.
This stuff is just off the top of my head. There are plenty of guys with good ideas out there.
But we DEFINITELY need to drain the political swamp!
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
This is what I was talking bout when I said that these people think that we're 50 colinies. We should cut spending, you're quite right about that, but just abolishing the federal government is not the answer.
standinstann 2 years ago
I didn't say we should abolish the federal government. It has it's uses, of course. But that is where spending cuts need to take place FIRST. And state minting can help relieve the pain of the inevitable collapse of the dollar. Getting with local communities is how we're going to survive, rather than depending on detached politicians way off in DC.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
I agree with you about reducing spending, but we've been spending our of control for a century and the problems we face today are relatively new.
I would like to see a reduction in unnecessary government spending, but i think that's a seperate issue from the role of government; weather it is the role of government to spend at all, and weather the govrnment should be spending as much as they do are two different issues.
standinstann 2 years ago
I don't think the problems we're facing are necessarily new, though. I think they've been suppressed and flowing like an undercurrent for the past century. And with these symptoms, I sometimes can't help but consider that when JFK tried to have the government print its own money instead of borrowing it from the federal reserve, he conveniently got assassinated. I'm not going to go conspira-wacko here, but I am saying that some of these problems aren't as new as we think.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
I thought Thomas Paine said that.
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
4:20
Oh my.
Yes.
In fact the sole purpose of the constitution WAS to protect the American people from it's government, and since the constitution lays out the government, it's ENTIRELY REASONABLE to say the constitution exists to protect people from the constitution.
Stick to funny movie reviews.
hossrex 2 years ago
@hossrex Again, if that were the case the constitution would have simply abolished its self, and the only amendment to the non existant constitution would read "congress shall make no law"
You don'e create a unifying document with clear objectives for the role of government to provide certain things if your overriding objective is to provent there being a government in the first place; you simply outlaw the creation of one. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
Secondly, you are absolutly 100% dead wrong when you say that "the sole purpose of the constitution WAS to protect the American people from it's government"
The purpose of the constitution was in fact to place the power of the government in the habds of the people so that they didn't have to be protected form it.
Because of the constitution, the people of this country are the ruling class; the only logical end of your analysis is that we need to be protected from our SELVES.
standinstann 2 years ago
That is to say, the purpose of the constitution was to MAKE the american people the government, not to protect it from "a" government,.
standinstann 2 years ago
Haha , what a joke. If the people of this country were the ruling class , which you would not want to have because a democracy, or mobocracy as I liked to call it, can be just as bad as an oligarchy. Anyway , if "the people" made the decision in government rather than a select group of individuals, non-property owners and women would have been initially allowed to vote . You should not want "the people" to have large concentrations of power because they can trample on indivisual rights
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
@standinstann
"if that were the case the constitution would have simply abolished its self, and the only amendment to the non existant constitution would read "congress shall make no law""
Nonsense. The people need a small governing body to do a few small things, as are specifically laid out in the constitution, and the constitution exists to make sure the Federal government doesn't abuse its power.
You're making a strawman here by acting like anyone wants "no law".
hossrex 2 years ago
I was going to rant.
Instead, I'll just say this video is a perfect example of why Matthew doesn't talk about politics.
hossrex 2 years ago
Maybe you should call it 'Stan's Thoughtful Presentations' ?
Or for snazz: 'Stan's Powerpoints'
Redrally 2 years ago
Well said, and I agree with you Stan.
5 stars.
jsduioeruisfwerfwe 2 years ago
Actually Stan, the social conservatives do not dominate the tea party in any real way. they try to attach themselves to the movement, but ask real tea party activists, and they'll tell you they have no real influence in the movement.
raptor797 2 years ago
Just a thought for your title, but how about "Political Issues with Stand in Stan"
TheAngryMovieNerd 2 years ago
You said that we have become a more just society because of larger government? I don't think so. Correlation does not imply causation. We have become more just because our morality has improved and we have become more interconnected, thanks to the internet. There were times when the government grew but discrimination against minorities and immigrants was still very rampant. The US was a world power yet it sterilize incoming immigrants and detained the japanese during WW2
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
I said that the role of government has changed as our society has become more just, not the other way around.
"things have changed since then and our society has become more just as a result."
The changes that took place were social, and those social changes lead to a change in how we govern.
standinstann 2 years ago
It should not be the federal government job to regulate a business if it performs bad; For one , The federal government is no more benovolent than individuals or groups of indivudals operating in the Free market. So why are they seen as more legitimate than individuals in the private market; It was the creation of the federal reserve that cause easy access to credit which in turn was responsible for the Great depression , because politicians were able print money at their whim
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
I agree that it is not the role of the government to regulate a private buisiness if it preforms badly. It is the role of government to regulate buisiness in order to garentee an equality of oppertunity and of conditions for the people of this country.
standinstann 2 years ago
BTW, Printing mass amounts of money causes inflation not resession and certainly not a great depression; the great depression was causes in part by the stock market crash where capitolism was essentially collapsing under its own weight.
The irony is, we eventualy had to enact socialistic measures to fix that and keep it from happening again (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
This isnt directed at you, just a point about the webumentary "zeitgist" (yeah I know i didnt spell it right, what else is new :P
The result of the great depression was that we had to figure out a way to distribute purchasing power to a wide sector of the population in order to fix the problem which lead to more socialistic measures; not to greater liberties for big corperations. they had to make sure that we didn't simply have over production and under consumption.
standinstann 2 years ago
There have been various economic boombs and busts before and the economy was quickly able to require, much notably in the late 19th century. If capitalism was the reason for the great depression, then why were there not any previous great depressions before? Commercial banks that had previous poor lending histories were able to have easy access to credit, because of the largely expanded money supply created by the fed. incompetent banks would have access to credit if it were not for the FED.
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
Capitolism in and of its self was nt responsible, you're quight right to say that have been economic booms and busts in the past. It was the kind of robberbarron capitolism of the era that was responsible (in part) not capitolism its self.
standinstann 2 years ago
incidently, it is exactly that kind of robber barron capitolism that almost contributed to another great depression; but that's the subject of another video.
standinstann 2 years ago
Lastly, I think there's some truth to your complaint about the fed, and the ability to arbitrarily lower or increase interest rates; that is one thing we agree on; though we may not agree on the solution.
standinstann 2 years ago
The great depression started with the stock market crash because too many investors sold their stock. It clung on so long BECAUSE of gov't inaction.
Syncdev 2 years ago
@Syncdev No, the Great depression was prolong because of government intervention. The federal reserve in the twenties set low interests rate which caused inflation followed by an economic boom , which made borrowing and buying assets really cheap. In the late twenties, interest rates were set really high by the federal reserve , and subsequently the caused the crash. Google the federal reserve caused the great depression and you will find that their is much debate between ecnomists about this
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
@pentazoid111 As soon as the gov't changed from a gold standard to a fiat system (where they could use monetary policy to stimulate the economy) the US average income of citizens rose almost immediately.
Syncdev 2 years ago
Oh please. the fiat system is the reason why this country has become wealthy , then zimbawe would be a very wealthy countries. The fiat system is the reason why both the country as a whole and individuals citizens are drowning in debt. The fiat money system is the main reason why americans in general lacked the incentive to save their money.
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
You are absolutely correct but the main downside of a gold or silver backed system is that it becomes very difficult to get out of recessions and they become depressions like this current one we have now (although this one is hanging around because of rolling over bonds, and irresponsible interest rates from the FREE MARKET). Continued in further comment
Syncdev 2 years ago
(continued) But I think that as long as we keep an eye on the gov't deficit and keep interest rates comfortable that we wouldn't have an 11 trillion dollar national debt, and the main downfall of the fiat system can be avoided whereas the main downfall of the gold/silver backed system cannot be avoided no matter what unless you can propose something I've not heard before.
Syncdev 2 years ago
Stan, The federal government was not created with the intent of forming into a nanny state; It was not created to provide education, healthcare, and other forms of welfare for to citizens because that requires coercing people into providing these services at the point of a gun and nobody likes that; The services such as education and healthcare would be created in the free-market so there is no need for the federal government to force people to create such services.
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
First of all, education is not welfare, second; providing education and helthcare is not the same as being a nanny state; it is providing that which every human being NEEDS in order to persue happyness.
education and healthcare ARE created in the free market; theyre called insurance companies and private schools. Having a government option for those who can't aford them doesn't change that one iota.
standinstann 2 years ago
Welfare is when the government provides aid because of a suppose need; The free market would not leave the poor behind; The Free market does an adequate job of tproviding other services to the poor and it will and has done a fine job of providing the poor a free education; The internet. Universities are offering their courses online for free on youtube and elsewhier, There are digital library projects underway to make all books available to the masses, all actions of the free market
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
The free market might not leave poor people behind, or it might; the free market does not set universal standards for its self; it is subject to the arbitrary will of the consumer and the fickle confidence of the masses. We as a society are perfectly within our rights to set standards and enforce them through our laws; thats what a government by of and for the people IS.
standinstann 2 years ago
Ron Paul (for example) is right to say that we could replace every federal agency; from education to air safety, with private ones; his mistake is not accounting for the fact that there is no guarantee (under a non-system like that) that those agencies would have uniform standards unless there is a blanket national standard of quality for them; in which case, they may as well be federal agencies anyway.
standinstann 2 years ago
Not true. the seeds of the teaparty movement were implanted by libertarian leaning candidate Ron Paul and he has been a harsh critique of our foreign policy overe seas and near land , and he seems like one of the few politicians who want to drastically reduced the role of the military around the world, rather than just remove the troops from iraq. What candidate are you referring too?
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
I studied the constitution this year in history and I was VERY impressed with what they prepared for almost 250 years ago.
I guess politics really don't change, eh?
NorvenLeverone 2 years ago
or Stand in Slant
Gundo420hunley 2 years ago
Call these "videos" "Speculations with Stan"
Gundo420hunley 2 years ago
My initial reaction to the tea parties was "what are these people even protesting" they always said we want lower taxes we want our leaders to follow the constitution!" yet they always seemed vague. And besides that, to my knowledge the Obama administration has not made any significant tax increases. I also thought that it was a hell of a time to start protesting, its not like we had an administration that was raping the constitution for 8 years.
Ghostboy177 2 years ago
@ Stan
Pelosi has in my book gained some respect. :)
And yeah, fair enough. I would like to see that as well.
ErikL01 2 years ago
@ Stan
What I meant was; you may very well be right in your assertion that the teapartiers have been corrupted, but there are better ways of arguing than using strawman arguments, as implied. As far as I know you attributed extemist viewpoints found in the fringes to great groups of people. I don't think they're that bad at the moment, I am also willing to give some credence to the opinions they starteted out with.
ErikL01 2 years ago
what I'm suggesting here is that the Tea Party is carrying parasites that are eating away at what might be a ligitimate message.
In the second part I gave my opinion on what I percieve that ligitimate message to be; but the first part was an attempt to distinguish between the crazies and everybody else; and admonish the movement for leting them in (or not being aware of them) just because they say "we don't like taxes either".
standinstann 2 years ago
"what I'm suggesting here is that the Tea Party is carrying parasites that are eating away at what might be a ligitimate message."
If your talking about a leading voice, then I would appreciate names. But like I said before as far as "parasites" as i said before, you cant prevent people from coming.
JeffreyMLicano11 2 years ago
the leading voices are more or less every person who spoke at the CPAC; all of which have adopted language that appeals to the movement.
The parasites are groups like the oathkeepers, and the fringe lunatics who carry signs like "we came unarmed this time"
You can't prevent people from showing up but you can at LEAST denounce them and distance your self from them.
standinstann 2 years ago
They have.
JeffreyMLicano11 2 years ago
Stan I'm SO happy your getting the ball rolling again! I get alot of joy from hearing your opinion.
Gundo420hunley 2 years ago
Right on the money Stan the tea party movement has really gone out of hand.
o2theh 2 years ago
without meaning to sound supportive of meaningless endeavours - the tea party movement would actually be useful in australia: we have no bill of rights down here - the government has an unjust amount of power over its citizens, and we can't do shit about it.. reducing the power of the government, to be able to be overthrown by the people if need be, would be a good thing in a situation like this.
ginsengaddict 2 years ago