Added: 10 months ago
From: MoxNewsDotCom
Views: 18,195
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (737)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • pollution causes disease and damages naturalwealth clean air and water..the clean air act is a good idea as long as it isnt just publicity bullshit to promote the appearance of good government

  • Spitzer you moron! While you were cheating on your wife with ugly hoes, Ron Paul was fighting for the Constitution and trying to explain to the ignorant Americans about housing bubble, gold standard and monetary policy! Just shut up and listen to the expert!

  • Elliot is such a freakin rude block head. why do people listen to this idiot.

  • all he can say is "I disagree with you". translation: "I have no intellectual argument against your view"

  • I freaking love it. ron paul does not need a copy of the constitution. he has it memorized. I freaking love it!

  • someone get spitzer a trollop, so he can have an intellectual conversation with her.

  • ELLIOT SPITZER looks like an evil fucker. I can't stand the shit that comes out of his mouth

  • @SmashedTesticles23 I agree with you.Spitzer expects complicated questions to be anwered in 2 seconds.His amphetamine fuelled verbal barrage makes him sound like an auctioneer!

  • Two very good American minds.

  • Great to see two honest man having honest discussions. Neither of them are panderers. I would definitely vote for Ron Paul. However, some of his views I do not agree with. Environment issue is one of those area.

  • Spitzer has great ideas, but he's often overly aggressive.

  • in this case ron paul is wrong

  • This would have been soooooo much better if Elliot SHITzer would shut the fuck up...

  • Ron Paul owned this fool

  • Ron Pauls problem in the analogy concerning the EPA is that in order to sue a company that pollutes for infringing on personal rights, the damage has been done and somebody will probably be terminally ill and die first. I thought it was an excellent debate. Spitzer is good

  • just because its not specifically in the constitution doesnt mean its unconstitutional. the constitution is mean to be brief to allow FREEDOM. That is why every single thing you can and cannot do it not in there... because the founders believed in freedom

  • @sirunlalala its unconstitutional because everything not specifically listed in the constitution is suppose to be left to the states instead of the federal government. it is one of the amendments in the constitution

  • Ron Paul is the best out of a moronic bunch. You would be justified for voting for him. But don't fall under the delusion that he's perfect - don't forget that Eliot Spitzer regulated Wall Street until they launched a smear campaign on him - after which the economic collapse happened. He knows what he's talking about, and he's making good points. Listen to the debate ffs and stop being ideologues.

  • Spitzer is haunted by Ron Paul at 4.41

  • I like Ron Paul's foreign policies and limiting big spending government, however I do agree with the "Clean Air Act" which had a large success from what I learned in my environmental biology class. With the $1trillion he promises to cut in the first year, I wish Ron Paul would have at least some environmental standards or social programs while having a balanced budget that would get us out of debt. especially in these hard times. what do you guys think?

  • @constabret

    I agree with you on the environment, but I'm still going to vote for him because I like his view on other subjects/policies compared to the other candidates.

  • I generally don't like Spitzer, and I'm a libertarian, but I was impressed with how he handled that interview. That was good.

  • Even though he disagreed with him, he showed Paul a lot more respect and consideration than most pundits who disagree with him.

  • "...the print's too small..."

    yes, just get your lawyer friends to interpret those laws for you. It's a shame you need a law degree just to hold your government accountable

  • Dr. Paul is definitely wrong about the EPA. green.blogs.nytimes (DOT) com/2012/01/04/a-photographic-­blast-from-the-past/?partner=r­ss&emc=rss

  • @iamthe1337est Page not found, I would like to read this.

  • @Xziro3 Remove (DOT) after green.blogs.nytimes

  • 2:57 "General welfare" clause SHUT DOWN. Notice how Spitzer stammers and starts making excuses IMMEDIATELY after Paul knocks him down on this one. Classic.

  • @lamdash lol maybe in your little Paulbot world

  • I remember this guy... gee, Spitzer, what a pimp! Good times huh buddy.

  • ron paul 2012... f the other lame its called controled media

  • guy sounds like hes popping betties

  • This is why Elliot's show failed conclusively.

  • That was the first time I saw Paul against the wall. He could not answer back with the sound answer. Good interview but he didn't let the guy get a word in.

  • Wealthy ass kike on CNN: "I am not the status quo." LOL

  • he looks a little like ron paul

  • RP is such a simpleton.

  • @androydnyc keep it simple, stupid. :)

  • You are correct when you say that regulators are industry men, and that taxes on industry are taxes on consumers, but the solution is not to abandon government. Regulation by lawsuit would be an ineffective nightmare, ceding too much power to the judiciary. Soon, industry would take over the courts. If you think limiting federal power is a good idea, look at our nation under the Articles of Confederation. It failed miserably; that's why the constutional convention was called.

  • I hate how Spitzer interrupts Paul with a noise like Nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-no any time Paul is about to finish a statement. This type of interview is making Americans even dumber, when will it stop?

  • Wasn't Spitzer involved in a scandal?

  • @RJWooller and?

    watch Client 9 and understand how much he was hated on Wall St.

    so what if he likes young strange-- who doesn't?

  • Comment removed

  • 'It's always fun to talk to congressman Paul'

    I don't think he would say the same thing about you.

  • Atrocious interview by Spitzer...overbearing, obnoxious...guys like that give lawyers a bad name.

  • Responding to Andsormida01: How can cosumerism solve environmental problems? The very word "consumer" implies devouring things. Hey, I like having lots of fun products and such, but point be fact, the more we "consume," the faster we deplete the planet. No way around it. Sooner or later, we will have to learn to get by with less. If we choose to ignore the hard truth, the decision will be made for us.

  • Elliot needs to lay off the pre-show Adderall

  • Clearly, you are the one who's clueless. You respond by name calling. You know what that means?  It means you're bankrupt of ideas.

  • The problem with replacing the EPA with lawsuits is that corporations have greater resources than citizens. As it is right now, the average person has little chance agains a corporation in court. With contracted government, you get rule by the wealthy. Contrary to libertarianism's ideals, radically reducing government promotes corruption and a nobility class. Just look at the 19th century for proof, with robber barons and a huge peasantry. Citizen empowerment is greater now.

  • @bruceduece1 I used to believe exactly as you do. The problem is that government has acted in concert with multinational corporations for centuries. The regulators are industry men. How can you trust them? Their solution to everything is a new tax on industry, but who pays the tax? The Consumer! It's all smoke and mirrors. The key is localization of economies and regulation, where they can be held directly accountable. If Jersey has a problem with Delaware's pollution, let them sue the producer.

  • I don't agree with everything RP says, but at least he's not batshitcrazy

  • Today I heard Paul say that the way to deal with Iran is to be its friend. How naive! Also, the idea that you can solve environmental problems by encouraging companies to be "good neighbors," is absurd. Corporate accountability can only be enforced through our penal code and environmental laws, enforced by government. Finally, the idea that the CDC is unnecessary risks pandemic. Hey! Let's abolish the CDC and EPA, and go shopping instead! How irresponsible!

  • @bruceduece1 you have no concrete understanding of any of these issues, clearly... you're a disgrace

  • @bruceduece1 Consumerism can solve environmental problems easily.

  • Ron "You can achieve (clean air) with free markets"

    Elliot "No you can't"

    Ron "You go to court and there's tort law"

    Companies that get sued for collusion or environmental acts usually stop due to the loss in revenue/profits, and Ron just showed us why he's so good. 

  • That was awesome, watching Elliot Spitzer get schooled on the Necessary and Propper clause.

  • Brilliant or crazy? Maybe both. His ideas are persuasive in theory but I have a real touch time seeing how they can be implemented practically. I also have a tough time with the concept that the Constitution is not capable of any growth to deal with modern circumstances. A Constitution frozen in time does not seem all that useful to 2011. Maybe I need to read his book to really wrap my head around it.

  • @heavybones The Constitution isn't frozen in time. That's why there have been amendments to deal with new information etc. The more I listen to Ron though the more brilliant he becomes.

  • Thank YOU, PhenomZ! Responding to my post makes it less likely that the opponents of reason will flag me as spam. It has happened.

  • Our nation was founded on more than the priciple of freedom. True freedom is enjoyed by wild animals, not a good model for citizen government. Other principles, equally important, are justice and equality. Those principles require government involvement. Social Security is consistent with those principles by providing for the sick and aged, therefore complying with the "necessary and proper" clause. Because something didn't exist in 1789 doesn't make it unconstitutional.

  • @bruceduece1

    Well said, sir.

  • @bruceduece1 That isn't what Ron is saying at all. Social Security & Medicaid weren't necessary until the health care industry got hijacked and when the US dollar started losing value. Before that lodges and private companies would take care of their members (like insurance) for medical expenses and retirement accounts. Plus, SS & medicaid are for specific groups not the "general public" so it's like having laws for Hispanics or Asians--not cool.

  • @bruceduece1 A Ron Paul world does not rely on true freedom. It rely's on freedom with boundaries. These boundaries are moderated (not controlled) by government. What people have completely forgotten is that courts are a wonderful forum to protect people's rights, health, and freedom and that the solution to a problem does not always necessarily lie with more bureaucracy. Social Security is not consistent with those principles because it demonizes groups, stripping them from equality.

  • fun to watch.

  • Spitzer has big balls to argue with Ron Paul, especially on the constitution!! Plus he never shuts up....oh wait, wasn't he cancelled?

  • Comment removed

  • I will say ES made a good point. Somebody tell me why we don't need the EPA. Paul states that Pittsburgh handled it, but if we didn't have environmental regulations through the EPA would we be better off and why?

  • If I can't steal from my neighbor than neither can the government. If you allow the government to be above the law then you will lose your freedoms. Ron Paul never gets stumped. He is too logical and consistent.

  • Seriously? You're going to call Ron Paul out on the Constitution? Dude can't read fast enough. Ron Paul dreams about the Constitution. He can recite it like its his name. This guy should be exiled.

  • This reporter is particularly disgusting in his ways of trying to make people look bad. Fuck CNN & TimeWarner.

  • LOL@ the discussion, we have no business telling other nation what they can or can't have.

  • "You motivate me." Owned?

  • Ron Paul is a lunatic. His foreign policy is truly frightening.

  • @GoodBadUglyest oh yeah putting troops on our border so our border agents dont have to die is down right scary. Glad you'd rather know whats going on around the paki/afghani border then ours.

  • @Dmonk08 Some of his positions are outstanding, like you said about the border. However...saying that he's ok with Iran getting a nuclear weapon, that's all I needed to know to cross him off my list. That's crazy. If it weren't for that I might be one of his supporters.

  • @GoodBadUglyest Russia had MORE nukes than USA, and USA were at (cold) war with them for quite some time.

  • @GoodBadUglyest Do you understand that we have no authority to tell Iran what they can and cannot have? It's not a matter of being ok with it, or not, we do not have the right to tell them what to do. It would be like china coming to us and saying we can't have aircraft carriers. RP has stated, Iran gaining a nuke despite our intel showing no effort to achieve one, If they have 1, or 5, compared to Israel's 300 that we know about. they would be killing themselves. Stop being afraid.

  • @Dmonk08 Uhhhh...yes we do. Iran is a terrorist-run state, and to allow them to have a nuke is inviting trouble. This problem has no easy solution, but America has the authorityy to do whatever the hell it wants. It may be an arrogant pposition, but I live here and if there's a place in the world to have this power, I'm glad it's us and not someone else. Are we a bully? Don't care as long as war doesn't come to our land.

  • @GoodBadUglyest I find it ironic that you find RP's foreign policy frightening. We have war on our land, that's why our people are dying on our border from cartels, where is your call to action to invade Mexico? Or are you more afraid of 3rd world countries 6k miles away. Glad you made this post to show everyone who views this video what an anti Ron Paul foreign policy looks like.

  • @Dmonk08 That is an excellent point. Our border needs to be secure, as of now, it is not. However...that is domestic policy, not foreign policy. Iran getting a bomb is a bad thing, that's all there is to that.

  • @GoodBadUglyest Wrong, domestic policy has NOTHING to do with what happens between us and Mexico, militarily. You need to research what you're discussing.

  • @Dmonk08 Your statement is not incorrect, but we have no problem with Mexico itself, its the organized crime coming across, not their government. My research is just fine on this. I would encourage you to see that protecting borders is a domestic issue. The only way this could be mistaken as foreign policy is the fact that we need to keep illegal foreigners out. Your viewpoint and analysis is naieve.

  • @GoodBadUglyest You're really not getting it are you lol I'm done here, dont bother continuing

  • @Dmonk08 You're just about as dumb as most liberals. it's a shame.

  • @GoodBadUglyest According to you most liberals are dumb, I'm a liberal and I'm at MIT, does that make me dumb? Where did you go to college?

  • @cirilomex92 And Bush went to Yale, so whats your point again? Also some people can be incredibly smart in some area and at the same time dumb in economic areas. Not saying you are dumb bt just stating that you are going to MIT doesnt tell me anything.

    For all we know, you could be a sociology/public administration/political science etc etc major :)

  • @cirilomex92 Dumb as in no common sense. I have 3 degrees... IT, Diesel Technology, and Business Admin. I am also ASE certified and have my own business. My business is not my full time job. Yeah yeah, I know Business Admin is weak, but it's the common sense that counts, and liberals don't have it, and lots of R.P supporters are just as crazy as the libs. It's too bad...R.P. has some great qualities, but his foreign policy is not acceptable, if it weren't for that, I'd probably support him.

  • @GoodBadUglyest I'm not sure why you have issues with Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas....they were good enough for the founding fathers to put them in the constitution. Ron Paul's running on some unfamiliar territory because as a country, you've drifted away from the constitution. I can’t believe that you would defend your "world policing, foreign policies" over the last 20-30 years...maybe more! Of course, if you are in the military, you might like a lot of aggressive wars, expense and death!

  • @bermudaguy1 I think you misunderstand my position on R.P. All he had to say was he would not intervene i Iran's seeking of nuclear weapons. After hearing that, I discounted him completely. Our Consittution places limits on the government, but in regards to the people's liberty. I do not think we should be in all the places we are. But I do think there are places we do need to be, and there are things we need to do. Like stop Iran.

  • @GoodBadUglyest So, you buy the propaganda that’s being pumped out about Iran? And naturally, America is supposed to police the world of any threat to anyone? Sorry, if I seem a little rude, but I'm betting you don't put on a military uniform every day.

    America goes out of its way, trying to make enemies...George Bush with his "axes of evil"! Gotta say, you start that shit in my neighborhood....we're gonna get you 1st! Plus, it is very arrogant .."pre-emptive" thinking!

  • @bermudaguy1  Just like I said earlier, and you have confirmed it. You R.P suporters are just as bad as liberals. Yoiu are making no attempt to hear and understand an opposing point of view.

  • @GoodBadUglyest My friend, in case you haven't noticed, the opposing point of view is all we've had so far!

  • @GoodBadUglyest You like to stereotype Paul and his supporters as being "crazy" on foreign policy. That often happens when one like yourself falls short of grasping a common sense intellectual understanding that has been hijacked through over exposure to "conservative" talk radio. I stereotype them as neo-cons. Fact is, Iran poses no threat to U.S. national security. What you have been fed is total propaganda. Can't you see the Military Industrial Complex is building a World Empire? 

  • @cirilomex92 oreilly went to harvard...

  • In response to grecorivera, the great issues facing America and the world cannot all be solved at the family dinner table. You wish to return to a time you find romantic and quaint. Let me tell you, the good old days weren't always so good. The rise in modern social thought has been brought about by the desire to alleviate suffering, something often overlooked by the adherents from the Right.

  • Elliot Spitzer has nothing better to do but argue law and the Constitution with Ron Paul. Elliot Spitzer does not have any respect for any laws that are in our country. He was governor of NY and got caught sleeping with a prostitute behind his wife's back. He has no place trying to back Ron Paul in a corner on national TV. He deserves to be put in jail so he can pay for the crimes he's committed. Just like everyone else.

  • Elliot Spitzer is a Jew.

  • Mill was a utilitatian, which meant that he endorsed the idea of government doing things that contributed to the general good. He would be radically opposed to Mr. Paul, primarily because he thought that it was government's duty to direct it's citizens on the right path. For instance, he supported prohibitive taxes on alcohol in order to discourage drinking. You need to read him carefully and not take him out of context.

  • Let's suppose we agree to abolish Social Security like Paul says. How many of our old, sick, and disabled people would be thrown on the streets to die? It's a question that needs to be asked.. So-called libertarianism is nothing more than a call for anarchy. Wild animals have true freedom. It's fun to be wild until you get eaten.

  • @bruceduece1 did you not hear him say transition period and keeping promises to our seniors? It's not going to be automatic day 1, it's over but a long period of transition till it ends.

  • @bruceduece1 How much stronger would families be today if social security never exhisted?

  • As a congressman, Paul does not have the authority to oppose on constitutional grounds; that is reseved for the judiciary. Social security has withstood every challenge in every court. The argument is silly and masks the real intention, which is, "I want my money, dammit!'

  • the very second I heard Spitzer read Gov. Ron Paul's definition of Liberty, the name John Stuart Mill clicked instantly...

    I suggest that every person alive today read John Start Mill's "On Liberty"

  • Spitzer has a right to direct the interview; he's the one conducting it. As for Mr. Paul, he's naive and dangerous. He's opposed to Social Security on constitutional grounds? It's been the law for 70 years! Clearly, he is the candidate for fools and malcontents. Opposition to central authority is what started the Civil War. If we're not careful, we could be choosing up sides again.

  • @bruceduece1 1st the social security is broken it is predicted to run out soon the opt-out is the best way to protect your assets. if you start your own account that you put money in for your retirement by the time your 65 you will have more money than a person with social security. what dr.paul is talking about is that back when it was formed it was done so unconstitutionality. and just because he wants to reform it it would still have to go thru the house and congress.

  • Comment removed

  • @bruceduece1 right the constitution hasn't been around for that long let's disregard it

    fuck i wipe my ass with the constitution what the fuck is it there for anyway?

  • If this was the standard of all political debate in the USA I would be very relieved.

  • Shut the fuck up Spitzer, let the man talk!!!!!!

  • Spitzer is pretty smart but he needs to stop doing lines during commercial breaks.

  • Paul WHOOP his ass.

  • What Ron Paul said from minute 8:58 - 9:11 is the most important thing you will ever hear him say. It is PRECISELY what is wrong with the world. The fundamental logic of rights is like math, it is topic neutral, you can't switch the logic around because the topic changes. Rights with speech and rights with the economy should follow the same logic, but it doesn't.

  • @tutorialdude333 Sorry, the constitution is not "math" and the topics of economics and speech are fundamentally different. Why do you think there is a separate and distinct right for speech? Sorry, Paul is too extreme to ever be elected president and because he is a nearly complete ideologue, he will never be able to do the practical things to make this country work. If he were to apply ideology to evidence instead of the other way around, I'd support him a lot more.

  • @aimson Yes, economics and speech are fundamentally different. But the logic behind the topics shouldn't change because of it. Logic is a form of math. It is the fundamental reasoning for decisions, and they shouldn't change. It's like math, 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. 1 banana + 1 banana = 2 bananas. That doesn't change just because we're adding 1 orange + 1 orange. If america's logic is based on freedom, Then speech should be free (which it is) and the economy should be free. Which it isn't.

  • You can't stump Ron Paul.

  • Shut-Up and let him talk ELLIOT!

  • Go ahead and read your own book ELLIOT SPITZER, you moron.

  • Vote for Ronny!

  • I cannot believe Spitzer called this an "intellectual sparring session". This was utter crap. I love how they'll quote JS Mill when they see fit but completely ignore what Mill actually stood for. He wanted society that cultivated the higher faculties of each individual by bestowing a degree of freedom supported by a particular level of welfare provided by the government.

  • @nutcrakerz Welfare that not only helps you but also incentivizes you to seek out your own personal calling. If welfare is properly implemented it won't make you a dependent lazy douchebag. Look at Germany and Scandinavia folks. WAKE UP

  • Lol both are trolls. Spitzer owns Paul though at 8:30 though. Whatever... american politics is and has always been doomed especially when the majority of America is barely educated.

  • @GearMecha i agree that spitzer indeed does have a dangerous philosophy. RON PAUL 2012

  • If this guy doesn't get at least 25% of the popular vote then there's no hope for this country

  • Elliot wins because he spoke 95% of the time, and cut off Ron. That is how you win debates, right!? haha

  • ELLIOT SPITZER IS A PUSSY!!!!!

  • who gave this dumb nerd elliot shitzer a job to interview people?

  • When spitzer is backed into a corner he says "Let's switch gears" and moves on. EPIC FAIL SPITZER...Stick with the hookers.

  • According to Spitzer General Welfare means that the government can do anything. Why have any thing else written? All you need is general welfare clause and everything is covered. In other words, Spitzer is a moron.

  • annoying interruptions, but i actually respect spitzer here. he's asking very intelligent questions and going into worthwhile debate. how many cable news shills can you say the same about?

  • this was the most intellectual piece of tv I have seen in a long time. i wish this level of debate could have been expanded for an hour with less interruptions by the interviewer.

  • Comment removed

  • Impeach O B O M B A !! NOW!!! there is enough evidence before he destroys you and your family. I hope we are not too late, God Bless you all if we are indeed too late.

    Go Ron Go

  • Spitzer has ZERO credibility. From Wikipedia: "According to published reports, investigators believe Spitzer paid up to $80,000 for prostitutes over a period of several years while he was Attorney General, and later as Governor."

  • @JWGames Why what's wrong with prostitution?

  • social security is a fucking ponzi scheme

  • @6:46

    I really think Spitzer asked a very good question. I think it was a prime example of how complicated politics can be.

  • RON PAUL vs ELLIOT SPITZER

    Two politicians that I actually have respect for. They are both handling themselves very well.

  • @lowell90 it's worse to be afraid

  • paul's a boss

  • Ron Paul handled himself well.

  • Why is this guy a "reporter"? He can't even stammer his way through half an idea.

  • Ron Paul is an intellectual powerhouse. I really respected the core values and constitutional integrity of the tea party folks I have spoken to recently but am now very disappointed in their support for Rick Perry in the tea party debate. This bumpkin Perry is the antithesis of Dr. Paul. Perry is everything that the lefties accused the Bushes of being and a caricature at that. I think it's time for Ron Paul.

  • @Rationalreason777 I support Ron Paul, except in his stance on DOMA and abortion. I believe abortion should be legalized or, at most, allowed in cases of rape. He supports DOMA because he believes in states' rights, but I believe DOMA goes against the Article 4, Section 1 - the full faith and credit clause. Either way, he's what this nation needs economically, and I'll almost certainly vote for him if he is chosen to run against Obama.

  • I like this kind of debate. It portrays 2 intelligent men who have 2 different point of views, which are both respectable due to their intellectual integrity. It's not like watching Sarah Palin debating Spitzer where it's like having an Ape (Palin) debating an intellectual (Spitzer)

  • Paul's idealogy to me is a bit utopian because it relies on an educated and reasonable population, as well as one that can restrain itself. That's not what we live in. I do however agree with him that government should be shrunk to its constitutional size, and that starts with BRINGING ALL TROOPS HOME.

  • @lowell90 Paul has a well thought out and reasonable ideology. Do not let unfamiliarity shortcut you to words of exclusion like "dangerous".

    On another note, Elliot is stuttering all over the place on this interview. I'm all for being hard-nosed, but just be more poignant dude. And let the man say his piece. No need to interrupt him with you being somewhat incoherent.

  • KNOW WHY BEACOUSE ELÖIOT SPLITZER IS A JEW GO SEE WIKIPEDIA JEWS AREW ARROGANT THE DONT ALLOW ANYODY TALK HIS PARENTS IS OSTRICH JEWS HE WAS IN A SCANDALS BUING HOKKERS THAT WHY HES NOT GUVENOR ANYMORE FUCK ELIOT SPLITZER HES JUST LIKE BEN BERNANKE QUOTE ME ON THAT ONE ANYDAY I HAVE FOLLOWED THIS PRICK FOR LONG LONG TIME HES A DUCHE !

  • freedom of speech is sacrosanct but economic freedom isn't? I doubt one could exist without the other and besides, it paints a bizarre picture of America that adheres to free speech out of dogma and not out of principle

  • HOLY SHIT! ELLIOT IS ALL cocky he has a pocket constitution, but then BLAM ron paul memorized the constitution and all clauses (it seems) wow. now that is a man who believes in the Constitution.

  • Thats an Incredible debate between these two, Eliot is the first person i think in my opinion prove some of Ron Paul ideals of how Government should be run is slightly flawed or at the least theres room for comprimise here. Im a Ron Paul Fan by the way i believe he should have a chance to be voted as president. However not 100% convinced he should be president. Obama/Ron Paul 2012 debate thats what im hoping happens.

  • @DR0Z4RT Part 2: You mentioned other ideas. Sure. We can entertain them. And use them if they FIT into the ideas of liberty. You forget that the founding fathers did not risk their lives for your new ideas whatever they may be. New ideas are allowed for, if and only if, they preserve our essential individual liberties. And those liberties are being taken away by the state through fear tactics. Fear mongering over terrorism. Fear mongering that you cant provide for yourself (entitlement programs)

  • but you forget, the founding fathers did not shed their blood for entitlement programs. They did so for liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness in a libertarian sense. Free from the hand of government. There are those of us that value that sacrifice and honor it and count ourselves lucky to be the beneficiaries of that sacrifice. I resent the hand of government in my wallet. I feel the income tax is illegal. The Federal reserve are counterfeiters that steal from me directly.

  • @DR0Z4RT I just noticed you asked "What's the solution?" Please tell me. You answered it yourself. Let the market regulate itself. Those "to big to fail" financial institutions? They would have gone bankrupt. The taxpayer, in other words, you, would not have be stolen from to give the banks free money called a "bail out" or TARP or QE1 and QE2. Further, if the markets were unregulated, the banks would not have been willing to lend money to people who are not likely to pay it back.

  • @DR0Z4RT Actually the SEC did contribute to the economic problems we face today by allowing the financial institutions to merge over the last 15 years and create our "To Big To Fail" financial institutions. The SEC should have denied the mergers. So, they are complicit in the scandal.