Nice playing into the false left/right paradigm, good job Andrew. "shut up" was a phrase coined during the bush administration...u remember the lap dog and "NEO-CONSERVATIVE" Bill O'Reilly dont you?
I love that when I say capitalism has some faults and that they have easy fixes I get labeled a socialist, or when conservatives whine about things liberals supposedly do, by doing that same thing.
Im cant debate you questioning the poverty line. It would be taking the debate away from provable facts and we could go on and on questioning everything. The percentage of "blacks" under or at the poverty line being 55% in the 50's and around 25% now, is a fact.
@YoungTon22 I'll take your word on the percentages, but they don't really prove very much as the very definition of poverty was different then from now. As to whether your stats prove that welfare programs have lifted folk out of poverty, I'm sure they have for some, but then in the 50's and 60's the economy was booming. There were jobs for poor who were prepared to take advantage of the help. Thats not the case now. How much has the percentage on welfare dropped in the last decade?
@vandpubsell I never said welfare programs lifted people out of poverty. Welfare is a net, not a lift.They lifted themselves out of poverty. I just used the statistics as proof that welfare doesnt destroy all "black" communities or poor "black" families lives. Welfare acted as a safety net
@YoungTon22 I never thought you did. Please understand me that when I said welfare lifted people out of poverty I meant, like you, that it enabled people, gave them the opportunity, to lift themselves. I've no problem with that. I don't mind welfare as a safety net. Its when people use it as a hammock that I object. And there are people who do. And their numbers are not declining.
What inane, vapid projection. Especially in defense of fruits like Coulter and Limbaugh who have, literally, called for people to do just that: shut up
Surely, there is noting flawed about the 'patriotic' conservative stance, nothing twisted in conservative media, and conservative policies that got us into this mess to begin with.
No, let's just invoke a massive no true scotsman fallacy. Everything bad? Arbitrarily 'liberal', People not listening to us because we're batshit insane? Censorship
There are far too many stupid points in this video to dive into just one. "Obama is trying to bring down the free market system by spending". Stupid,unprovable, and not unique to Obama. "You are racist if you say welfare destroys black families lives". Maybe because it begs the question, why are you not talking about "white" families also, who happen to be 50% of the recipients?
@YoungTon22 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@marionetemanJ Youre on the wrong video and youre also barking up the wrong tree but good luck with whichever fairy tale you believe. Food for thought. If there were overwhelming evidence and historical evidence to prove these claims, by definition it wouldnt be faith or belief than would it. Again, good luck with that
@YoungTon22 Simple answer. Half the recipients may be "white", but "white" families make up far more than 50% of the population. Whereas Blacks make up only about a sixth of the population, but a far higher proportion of the recipients. Being on welfare isnt a great position to be in for anyone, but the point is its obviously much more of an issue in the black communities.
@vandpubsell That doesnt really answer the question. So does welfare destroy "black" families lives but not "white" families lives? Relying on social programs is much more of an issue in "POOR "black" communities" for obvious reasons like the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE US. In the 50's, the majority of "blacks" were poor. Now, only a quarter are under the poverty line and rely on help. Thats only 2 or 3 generations
@YoungTon22 Welfare programs affect everyone equally - they have more of an affect on black communities simply because a much larger proportion of black families are on welfare. As for your charge re the history of the US - maybe, but do you want to see that situation perpetuated? Being utterly reliant on someone else for the everything is very bad psychologically for any adult. It leads to chronic ennui, no motivation and a lack of self-confidence. Its the new slavery.
@vandpubsell you are falling for the liberals class warfare trap . Thanks to them welfare is an equal opportunity affliction. and don't forget it was there socialist policies that got rid of the jobs in the first place. us poor people don't get anything from subsidies and we did not vote for them. attack fascism only (they hate that word by the way) restore Americans commercial rights, and welfare will dissolve all on it's own.
@vandpubsell Did you know that 75% of social program households have at least one income? So "relying on someone else for everything", isnt an informed statement. Also, how does welfare affect "black" families disproportionately? I understand you saying that "blacks" use welfare at a higher percentage, but as I said, in the 50's, more than half of all "black" families were at or below the poverty line. This type of welfare became available in the 60's. Now it is 25%. Isnt that prosperity?
@YoungTon22 I didnt say welfare affected black families disproportionately. I said it affected Black communities disproportionately, which must be true because a higher proportion of black families are on welfare. Its immaterial that 75% have an income - that one income is obviously insufficient, or they wouldnt be on welfare! Therefore they are dependent on others to make up the slack. They may be more prosperous, but its a false prosperity because they are not earning it.
@vandpubsell The video said "black" families. We are talking about the video. It isnt immaterial that 75% have an income because you said "relying on someone else for EVERYTHING....". Now you are going back on what you said, saying "they are dependent on others to make up the SLACK".A contradiction. "false prosperity"? You must have missed my point. They ARE earning it because that portion that rose above poverty and out of/arent on welfare. Remember, you have to qualify for welfare.
@YoungTon22 You're quibbling over words. The point of Klavan's argument is simple and it is clear. Dependency on others for your needs (whether complete or partial - obviously partial is not as bad) acts to sap self reliance, self esteem, and ambition. Its not good for people psychologically (and economically very bad for everyone else). It destroys black families because a much higher proportion of them are on welfare (and for no other reason, in spite of YOUR insinuation).
@vandpubsell Youre stumbling over words and have already contradicted yourself. I heard his point. I disagree with the rhetoric therefore I dont honor his point. I thought that was already understood.
@YoungTon22 How do you reckon that? I said "Being utterly reliant on someone else for everything is very bad psychologically for any adult" That is not untrue. If 75% of welfare recipients have an income (and Ill take your word for it - I dont know the exact figures) that means that their income is insufficient for their needs, which means that others must be picking up the slack. That is not untrue either. The two statements are not contradictory.
@vandpubsell No its not true that all welfare recipients are "reliant on someone else for EVERYTHING" and YES, welfare "picks up the slack" for working families but these statements contradict each other.
@YoungTon22 But I didnt say that ALL welfare recipients are reliant on someone else for everything. You are intuiting that. I just made the broad statement that being "utterly reliant on someone else for everything is very bad" (which is true). It was only after that you made the point that 75% of welfare recipients have an income that I pointed out that still means they are partially dependent on others. The two statements are not contradictory. Now address the argument please.
@vandpubsell You didnt say "some welfare recipients" either.anyways, I totally agree with you on having distain for the people who use welfare as a hammock. There should be reform that makes it extremely hard to do so.
@YoungTon22 You might give me the benefit of the doubt - we only get 500 characters here! :) Anyway, while agreeing with you in general, I would point out that bringing in reforms to reduce welfare fraud without at the same time adversely affecting those in genuine need is extremely hard to do.
@vandpubsell True,but I think it has to be done to make welfare trully work as the simple safety net that it is.With all that said, I think Americas fucked up.There are nothing but extremely hard decisions to make that guarantee someone will always get the short end of the stick.Not to mention,corporate interests are being put in front of our interests just for money.Rampid ignorance,racism,misinformation,stupid laws and codes,"stop at the line though you cant see it" revenue traffic cameras,...
@YoungTon22 How else do you check to make sure welfare is being used properly but with more administrators, means tests, and enforcement? All of which will be expensive and (justifiably) very unpopular. I agree, there are nothing but extremely hard decisions to make and for sure someone is going to get the short end of the stick. But then, that has always been true since the year dot.
@YoungTon22 Part 2. Just because you don't like the way someone puts something doesnt mean their arguments should be immediately dismissed. Klavan is a political pundit and they often go over the top in order to get a reaction. However, the point remains - social programs like welfare are often counterproductive. Sure, they solve the immediate issue - people are no longer struggling financially - but they create great and enduring social problems for the future.
@YoungTon22 And another point...what is the poverty line? Its a very arbitary evaluation and usually only relative to the average in the population anyway. It varies considerably from country to country and year to year. 25% below the poverty line today compared to 50% five decades ago might just mean we have reclassified what counts as being in "poverty"..
@vandpubsell So....I used the poverty line becasue its a real number that signifies virtually all "black" welfare recipients.Im not here to teach,but ill tell you that it measures the ability to obtain/or purchasing power of basic needs in a given country .Its not a number that the they just pull out there ass like youre insinuating.It does not vary considerably from year to year in the US(unless you have a different definition of considerable) and of course it varies from country to country
@YoungTon22 Its not a made up number in the sense that they fiddle the calculation, but who defines what are "basic needs"? I can guarantee the "basic needs" of the last generation were different. Who defines what level is "basic"? And of course the line must be redefined constantly - if only because both the cost of items and the purchasing power of money is always changing. Some "poverty lines" are based on a % of average income, which tells us more about equality than poverty!
This guy doesn't even know how to use a straw man argument right. Seriously? Yes, when faced with someone as dumb as this man saying "shut up" is a good idea, but I doubt anyone has actually done it. Try watching something other than fox news, or just asking the nearest person that isn't to the far right of reality, and you will find a arguments for liberalism.
I'm thinking in making a video heavily inspired by what you're saying, but in French and adapted to France, to show the "shut up" argument by the left, and the right, used against the nationalists. I may plagiarize a few sentences here and there.. because the situation is the same and you resumed it perfectly well, but I'll make my own video for it, and not use any sound or footage from this one. Do you mind?
The "shut up" response from non-conservatives is short for "We've explained several times why your 'ideas' are intellectually bankrupt, dishonest, and disconnected from reality. We're not going to waste our time with your simpleton arguments anymore. If you can't come up with anything new that is grounded in reality, then kindly shut up." If conservatives don't like the "shut up" response, then they should consider looking into this inconvenient thing called 'reality'.
@mtheory85 So, it's somehow not reality that Obama added more to the national debt in his first year than Bush did in his first term? I know. I know. "Shut up." Or, how, in reality, it's impossible to get yourself out of debt by taking out another credit card, once all the ones you have are maxed out? Oh, yeah. "Shut up."
We get it. Liberals, like yourself, are idealists. You want to help people. The problem is, the time for idealism has passed. We need realism. I know. "Shut up."
@CaitiffFTW No, actually that wouldn't be reality. For one, Bush didn't even put the Iraq war on the national budget, which Obama did immediately after stepping into office (3 trillion). For two, a trillion-dollar stimulus package was required to stop the economy's free-fall that started at the end of the Bush administration, and most economists have argued it still wasn't enough. Sounds much nicer when you don't mention that most of the money was spent cleaning up after Bush, doesn't it?
@mtheory85 There are two problems with your logic. First, unemployment was worse WITH the Obama stimulus than the Administration and the CBO claimed it would be WITHOUT the stimulus. In fact, unemployment is STILL higher than what Obama said it would be without the stimulus.
Second, your response is "It's all Bush's fault, so shut up." Obama voted for the Bush stimulus. Obama signed his own. They BOTH FAILED! And, you're gonna need to cite references on your economist claim.
@CaitiffFTW Yes, unemployment was worse than originally predicted. What's your point? The fact of the matter is that unemployment was going to get a whole lot worse without it. So what if Obama voted for the Bush stimulus? You'd have to be completely irresponsible not to vote for a stimulus. The crucial difference is that only Obama's stimulus had an adequate requirement of accountability. Reference: tinyurl(dot)com/yhegsxp
@mtheory85 That's just it, though There is no way of knowing what would have happened. We know the estimates. We know what actually happened with intervention. And, by the way, in Paul Krugman's economics classbook, he says that the Great Depression was a time of economic growth. I don't believe a word he says, especially after his "fake alien attack" comments.
And, for the record, you'd have to be VERY irresponsible to vote to spend money that doesn't exist on things that won't help.
@CaitiffFTW Saying that there is no way of knowing what would have happened is like saying that there is no way of knowing what would have happened had you not pulled your parachute after jumping out of an airplane. The housing market crashed. The stock market was plummeting. Unemployment was shooting up. Hard to argue that it would have magically stopped. Krugman's "fake alien attack" comments were just an example to show that when people have a shared goal, it bolsters the economy.
@mtheory85 The stock market crashed because people were getting home loans that they couldn't pay. Those loans were given out due to regulations enacted by Clinton. But, it's Bush's fault, right?
And, you're right. There is no way of knowing what will definately happen if you don't pull the cord. You know what's likely to happen. But, 1 in a thousand walks away from that.
There is no room for "what would" have happened. You heard the claims, and you see what DID happen. That's it.
@CaitiffFTW The housing bubble was part of the reason, but the 'regulations' enacted by Clinton, namely the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (sponsered entirely by Republicans who dominated both the House and Senate and required Clinton to sign the bill in return for passing the Community Reinvestment Act which helped disenfranchised communities), were actually deregulations that allowed commercial and investment banks to merge. I think I'll take my 999 out of 1000 chance of needing a parachute.
I like how he tries to make Conservatives out to be the "victims" of stereotypes and labels, but then decides to call some Liberals "Communists." A well-spoken Glenn Beck. Fox, give this guy a show!
@wyndam71 That remark is so predictably liberal it's almost laughable. A derisive comment with no factual integrity, no compelling argument brought to the table, and nothing of value contributed to society whatsoever. Do you realize how stupid you are? You validated everything he said in that video with your comment that essentially said, "Shut up." No counter argument provided, no flaws pointed out, simply a childish insulting attack. May God have mercy on your soul.
@PIAF22 I'm required to respond to something lacking in factual integrity with factual integrity? No, I long ago given up on trying to reason with stupid.
Furthermore, did you just call me childish and in the next breath invoke your imaginary friend? Seriously?
@wyndam71 lmao Did you really just say "...I long ago given on trying to reason with stupid." Well, sir, as soon as you support what you say with facts, I'll consider respecting your arguments, which for the moment, are nonexistant.
I agree with his point/purpose and some of the liberal bashing, but I strongly disagree with some of the details, which are either misinforming or such strongly conservative biased BS you would expect to hear. -- My stance, same as it ever was, being independent because both "sides" are full of shit.
Wow. All I'm reading from liberals is the same horseshit that they always say: Fox lies, Conservatives are "Big Money" puppets, and all that same crap.
I'm fairly certain Net Neutrality was created to prevent ISPs from pushing the websites, services, and software that they want by throttling or outright blocking competitors or people they don't like... not telling people to 'shut up'.
Did he really say that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity argue. As for Limbaugh I have never heard him debate a soul but himself. And as for Hannity, well, as long as the SHOW has his name on the marquee ther won't be much of an argument. Anyway...
Why is net neutrality a "shut up" doctrine? Doesn't it make sure that the internet companies are unable to filter your content, no matter what it is? That seem to be the opposite of "shut up." But I agree with everything else.
BTW liberals are not against free speech and as far as i know many liberals such as myself believe in the free market and we believed that the government is allowing wall street to create monopolies which in fact DESTROY capitalism. I personally disagree with Fox News and Rush because of chronic lies! they often mislead people which i think is wrong, i think giving your opinion on facts is good... making up your own facts is not, specially when you have media influence.
"the gazillion dollars in spending..." 60% of spending goes to defense... if conservatives (and Obama) were really against spending they should cut the trillions of dollars in defense and not social aid which in fact once had a surplus. Some republicans have gone as far as denying assistance to hurricane victims! this is what you guys advocate for? i hope not, you really should stop trying to antagonize liberals so much and start focusing on the problems whit the system.
I am a conservative, and just because I think that we shouldn't lose American dollars and American soldiers for dependent nations means I am anti-semetic? This is total Ben Stein bullshit. Anyone with half a brain can see through it
Hey, did you right wing-nuts enjoy getting the shit kicked out of you in Ohio, Maine, Mississippi, and Arizona last night? Soon GOOF-ernor Walker will be shown the door. And if Christy thinks he will be President someday, he is in for a big surprise. 99% baby, 99%.
@vdarte dear left wing idiot i would like to advise you to watch bill whittle the bridge in your mind and three and a half days..maybe he can force some good politial values into your squishy little mind (:
Actually, yes, when Democrats push for the "Fairness Doctrine" and "Net Neutrality" that would allow the Federal Government to dictate content... their war against anyone who is not politically correct gets ramped up.
They actually want to force an outlet that is funded by conservatives to also broadcast Leftist propaganda, to enforce "fairness" and "neutrality".
They're like the Cuckoo's egg. They'll force you to burn up your resources helping their cause.
Bin Laden and Qaddafi sure felt Obama's soft approach, didn't they?
How about you shut up, right after you admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
This is merely a suggestion, of course, not an order. Free speech allows you to be as crazy and as wrong as you like. And hopefully, thanks to continued net neutrality, that won't get you censored in the future, either...
"Net Neutrality" is a leftist plan to inhibit the free speech of conservatives online? Seriously? I suppose I could use these remaining 361 characters to explain why that's the most idiotic thing I've heard in the past month, but I realize that anyone who would say that (or take it seriously) is already far beyond any appeal to "facts" or "reason." I shouldn't be surprised though - this coming from the same website that recently confused a pound sign with a "bizzare neo-Swatstika."
in my country they brand you a nazi, a right-wing extremist, a baby killer, a racist, an islamophobe, an anti-social freak, an idiot, or just someone who likes rich people (whom every sane person hates more than anything else in the world). and they tell you to shut up. and they make sure they erase you from their friends list on facebook. and they start giving you strange looks when they see you, refusing to talk to you.
@psusac "i'm just going to ignore you"... while Obama's Brown coats silence the opposition for good. Just sayin, the Nazi's (National Socialist German Worker's Party) are leftist, and their favorite thing to do was silence and ignore the opposition (just like Liberals)
@Nationofhonor You really need to look up lables like "socialist"
Just because the Nazis called themselves socialist doesn't meant they practiced socialism. Also, lots of socialist nations exist that are NOT totalitarian dictatorships.
Your logic is "nazis are bad, nazis called themselves socialists therefore socialism is bad"
This is the child-like reasoning that Glenn Beck is famous for.
Learn to look for vews that contradict your own. It will help you learn how to think.
@psusac You're such a Liberal know it all. The Nazi's did practice Socialism, and if you even for 1 second believe that they were right wing or something like that you're an idiot. I hope you turn into a conservative when you grow up and become mature.
@Nationofhonor And YOUR such a conservative DOODIE HEAD! :-P
We live in a nation where there is NO representation any more for the vast majority of people, where elections are all owned by big money on both sides, and you and I are disenfranchised.
You insist on dividing the world into "liberal vs conservative" and ignore the fact that NO party represents your rights or interests.
Truely you are a product of our mass propaganda culture. Take the blue pill already!
@psusac You're a moron, you probably did take the blue pill (the ignorance one) I have already taken the Red pill, and I for one can see how ignorant you are. I don't belong to a party, I belong to an Ideology called conservatism, it isn't a party, it is an Idea written in stone that seems to work better than all other Ideas thought up so far. I do not split the word into "liberal vs Conservative" I view the world as good and evil, you must view the world as nothing is evil and nothing is good.
@psusac Oh you are absolutely right why do we always point to the failures and human rights violations of the nazi's and the USSR and soviet China whenever we discuss socialist government why do we never point out the tremendous creativity and advances in the sciences and quality of life improvements of other socialist regimes such as...uh.....well. Help me out here do you know of a socialist regime that is not engaging in individual creativity suppression and human rights violations??
@cogit8able Your miss my point. We have this "boogie-man word" called socialism that the right trots out any time anyone suggests that there is anything that can ever go wrong with capitalism ever.
The rich have used the open corruption of our political process to drive the economy into the ditch. This is a consequence of capitalism. But we can't talk about that can we?
I don't want socialism. I just find the right's rhetoric annoying. We need solutions not mud slinging.
@psusac And you miss my point the fix to capitalism is a free market which is what we do not have . The more we embrace government interference the more corrupt we get . That is how we get crony capitalism where big money put their puppets in office . In a free market when goods cost exceeds their value people quit buying and they go out of business or adjust their cost . We need to let healthcare sink or swim and adjust their cost. Same with companies and banks
@cogit8able I don't know where to begin. How is it ever possible to have a free market? Businesses dont' want free markets. They want monopolies. What goverment has ever failed to manipulate it's market? Printing money, passing laws and deploying police and military are all goverment functions that will ALLWAYS have financial consequences.
You throw "free market" around like it means something. How about you define that term for us?
@psusac In a free market there are certain pre conditions. Among which are government agencies that ensure that people only deal with each other by choice. That force is only used against individuals and groups who wish to coerce people to participate with traders against their wishes.
And the government agencies would move against traders who were in collusion with each other to manipulate the price of goods or services.
I don't believe there is a truly free market anywhere on Earth today.
@ReasonIsADivineGift & what forms of censorship occur on the Right? Talk radio hosts invite their opponents on regularly. Fox News commentators do the same.
If Lefties want a counter protest against, the TP rallies, go ahead and watch as there is no attacks upon them. During the Bush admin there were many protests against Bush and Bush did nothing to stop them. So what censorship is there on the right?
But, there are different divisions besides simple Liberals and Conservatives. This video doesn't address the problem of Neo Conservatives - New Conservatives taking over the leadership of the Republican Party and Conservative think tanks - and these Neo Conservatives use the same Shut Up tactics against thus of us who argue against foreign wars for foreign interests and who want strict immigration controls. They tell us to SHUT UP - You're a FASCIST/NAZI same as the Left.
@EandMB stfu, stfu, stufu, stfu. No, you're stupid. Nah nah nah nah. Please envision me sticking my tongue out at you as I say all this to you. That is about the quality of most leftist dialogue.
Without his quadrupling of Bush's deficit (who never was very fiscally savvy or conservative) the movement would have never got legs.
We don't care who the politician is, republican, democrat, (that may be redundant) black or white, we just don't think we are getting our VALUE out of the taxes we pay. Simply put - our politicians spend OUR money STUPIDLY!
All we ask is that our politicians spend OUR money like it was their OWN!
I never used to define myself as conservative but I also didn't identify with liberals. Since I didn't go along with what liberals said I was labelled conservative. I was dropped by friends for not agreeing with them. I've realized now a conservative is anybody not in complete lockstep with liberal dogma. Liberals are one narrow band of hate-filled fanatics, and conservatives are anybody else. Liberals are actually doing much more recruiting for conservatives than any conservatives are.
@LightningChimp "Liberals are actually doing much more recruiting for conservatives than any conservatives are."
Very true. I used to be a die-heart bleeding-heart liberal. Then I left home, moved to a blue state and did a complete 180. Now I'm a die-hard libertarian.
Net neutrality would prevent Time Warner (CNN) from blocking NewsCorp (FOX) websites. What blocked you from doing a few minutes of research to save yourself from sounding like an ignoramus?
@meggatonman If conservatives are full of BS, then demonstrate it by pointing it out. Saying "shut up" really gives credence to the conservatives as it gives reason to believe that maybe the conservatives have good ideas.
@Aegius obamas 'soft approach to tyrants'? Gazillion dollars of taxation? no movies supporting the war on terror? welfare policies destroys black families? 'leftism' fail everywhere? Europe is anti-individualist, anti-religious and anti-patriotic and are flacid and passive? i smell a lot of BS
@meggatonman Soft approach to tyrants = meeting them personally & kissing their butt(i.e. Chavez). "gazillion dollars of taxation" = $1.5+ trillion annual deficits. Highest deficit under Bush '43 = $465 billion. Please name me a movie that supported the war on Islamic extremist terror. Welfare policies since LBJ(1965): 24% of black infants and 3.1% of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 6 % for black infants, 18% for whites. cont...
@meggatonman Europe has become largely atheist as only about 10% of Europeans are religious Christians. Anti-individualist? They have become social welfare states that are now collapsing. Anti-patriotic? They don't believe in themselves and handing over their sovereignty to the UN. Flaccid and passive? They were wimps during the Cold War and mostly do nothing in response to Islamic terror. So what BS?
@Aegius Yea and about 90% are non-'religious' christians, the separation of church and state means that doesn't matter. And Europe is NOT a collection of collapsing social welfare states, put together they have a WAY bigger economy then anyone else. Nobody has handed anything to the UN except maybe soldiers, and wimps during the cold war? They were the ones on the frontlines stopping the USA and the USSR from annihilating everybody, which they succeeded in doing.
@meggatonman Actually yes Europe is a collection of collapsing social welfare states, b/c the money has run out and debts have piled up big time. Their sovereignty per treaties has been handed over to the UN. & Frontlines? Only via pressure from the US. MILLIONS of Europeans protested frequently against standing up to the Soviets.
You have no idea what you are talking about on ANYTHING.
I understand having an opinion and I understanding tuning your program to the ideals of that opinion... but this is as biased and blind as Fox News.
And I rarely ever hear John Daily say sh*t about Democrats, they do stupid shit just like Repubs. Why the hell do we have so many satirical comedy acts exclusively poking fun at one group?
Its not the group, its idiotic individuals and ignoring that allows their ideals to spread to other individuals forming an idiotic group.
After watching a few Andrew Klavan on the Culture videos I was intrigued and for the most part happy to hear the way Andrew explains some things. After a few more I started to notice a focus trend. This video mostly confirms that trend and its no secret from Klavan's perspective, I'm sure - that he's heavily biased towards right wing idealism.
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly all love using the term shut up and use it exactly the same as Klavan depicts left wingers. Biasd focus AK.
@MadBagOfHorses Right wing idealism as, in a limited government that exists to protect the individual freedom of its citizens and not take their money to fund welfare programs?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting Democratic ideals what so ever. Just saying that foolish ideas and biased individuals exist on both sides of the fence. Honestly my biggest problem is that we still feel the need to segregate and align ourselves with a group and its overall focus. News mediums especially.
Today I was threatened with death for not shutting up. For speaking out against the common media line in the UK. The left have failed and now all that remains of them is empty threats.
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are liars who use lies and strong wording to get their point across. This man is defending those two people by saying they are getting wrongfully attacked and lied about when in fact they do more of it then the people HE is attacking. Such hypocrisy one will see the most in the GOP. It is also wrong to tie the film industry with Democratic politicians, when in fact politicians have no say on what the film industry puts out.
One man's hunger is not caused by another man's love of diamonds. It is cause by lack of food. A rich, evil, greedy, suite wearing, cigar smoking's love of diamonds actually helps! He buys the diamonds at the store and the 3 or 4 employees there get paid, to which then they buy food, and thus do not starve. Then again, you problably didn't think this far huh?
"One man's hunger is caused by another man's love of diamonds."
NO, NO, & NO.... One mans huger is caused by HIS lack of FOOD. My possession of a diamond in no way has any effect on how much food you eat. Please, please people, actually THINK.
I'm curious... would you agree, that an American citizen CEO, who is currently earning, say, 3 million per year after tax, would be unpatriotic if they relocated to another company overseas, if that meant they would earn the equivalent of 4 million per year, as a result of dodging extra taxes and regulations?
"And get the fuck out of afghanistan, and stop spending trillions on useless military equipment" you would like that wouldn't you Ivan? Please, don't tell us how to fight our wars, and we don't spend it on "useless equipment". You are just mad because we kicked your slavic ass in the military build up during cold war. Go cry about it. If your upset about money not going to science, blame Obama. He's the one who shut down NASA.
How exactly are capitalists paying for the entire middle class? More like exploiting.
The wars in iraq and afghanistan have been disasters, and have not really achieved that much. They have been profitable for the military industrial complex. Every time someone commissions another fighter jet or aircraft carrier, that's a direct transfer of wealth away from the middle and lower classes.
@mcpencil The United States of America has the second highest corporate income tax IN THE WORLD. The bottom 46% or so don't pay any income taxes at all. If things were actually "fair" in America, you, and ALL of the middle class would be pissed. The wars in Iraq and Afghan aren't disasters. What we have acheived in Iraq is a country that isn't like Iran, and an Iraqi govenment that will hold out for as long as it can to stop the fundamentalist Muslims. In Afghan, we killed Osama....
@mcpencil and severely crippled the AQ. So what if the industries that makes weopons are great. It just makes us a better country, however, one thing I will say, is that we could cut down on funds. Ummm..... you do understand that the military is responsible for protecting America right? The middle and lower and rich ALL pay taxes and it goes to military. A strong military means safety and security. The best means the most pull with other countries. Why should Churches pay?
@mcpencil The reason why America was founded is so religions would be left alone. Churches are apart of religion. In fact, you can't even make a law about an establishment of religion (churches). BTW, the end result will be gatherings in homes. So all that will end up happening is that Christianity will be driven underground.
No, it was founded so that people could be free FROM religion. Separation of church and state. Why should I be subsidising meetings of myth-believers with my own tax dollars?
@mcpencil The establishment clause in full in the Constitution: "CONGRESS shall make NO LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." No sir, this is to protect religions and churches from the government. It isn't "subsidising", you are prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
How exactly does land tax PROHIBIT people from practicing their religion? That's like arguing that income tax PROHIBITS people from working. It doesn't.
RE: Corporate income tax, I was talking about individuals, not companies. People earning huge amounts should be taxed more heavily. Also, In an ideal world, CEOs would not be making millions. Unfortunately, this presents the problem of them leaving the country and working elsewhere, which makes it unrealistic. Greedy, unpatriotic.
@mcpencil Like I said, churches that can't pay, will be driven underground. All you will be doing is driving them away. These individuals own the companies sir. They go overseas already JUST WITH THEIR BUSINESSES ALONE, because the businesses are taxed WAAAAYYYYYY too heavily. Greedy: for trying to keep their livelyhoods? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO JUDGE ME, OR ANYONE ELSE?!?! They aren't breaking the law FUCK YOU!. Anti free market is unpatriotic. Just like you.
Yes, as I said, CEOs who currently make multimillions, would abandon their country, just because they could save a few bucks of an already unnecessary high amount. It's not about keeping their livelihoods, they are already set for life. What difference would it make to their happiness if they were earning 5 million per year, vs. 4 million? It's about satisfying their greedy nature for EXCESS... more properties, more luxury cars, paying off the trophy wife. So, that is unpatriotic.
@mcpencil I mean livelyhoods by how they live their life. Again I say to you, who are you to tell anyone how they should live their life? Who are to tell them what will or will not make them happy huh? In reality, YOU sir, are greedy. You are quite materialistic in your nature, yet you say that you are fighting against materialism. You are very covetous, you covet your neighbours house(property), your neighbours car, and your neighbours wife. You are unpatriotic because America is a Capitalist.
I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives, because unfortunately I am not in a position to influence policy. I am merely sharing my ideas about what would make for a better society. One man's hunger is caused by another man's love of diamonds. Society would function much more smoothly, happily, and harmoniously, if there were neither extreme lows in income, nor extreme highs (like people earning many millions per year). The free, unregulated market does not maximise wellbeing.
@mcpencil NO duh you aren't in a position of power, and I am glad, so stay out of power then because your ideas are bad quite frankly. And one man's hunger is not caused by another man's love of diamonds. It is cause by lack of food. A rich, evil, greedy, suite wearing, cigar smoking's love of diamonds actually helps! He buys the diamonds at the store and the 3 or 4 employees there get paid, to which then they buy food, and thus do not starve. Then again, you problably didn't think this far huh?
@mcpencil BTW, an unfree, pharoah state doesn't maximise wellbeing either. You cant legislate "well being"(define please), you can only create an environment that will give the opportunity for the most people posible to do what makes them "happy"(my definition here).
@mcpencil Here, in the meantime, you are Marxist. I have already explained why they shouldn't pay land tax. The churche's clergy members are not tax collectors you fool, this is against Christianity. Appeal to the "dumbfuck religious right." God bless you sir, though you may hate me and all of my brothers because we are Christians, know that I still love you, though I don't like how you have been playing god this whole time. You are Biblicly illiterate sir, Biblical education IS education....
Nice playing into the false left/right paradigm, good job Andrew. "shut up" was a phrase coined during the bush administration...u remember the lap dog and "NEO-CONSERVATIVE" Bill O'Reilly dont you?
So shut up andrew. Ron Paul ftw
ORACLE063 3 hours ago
I love that when I say capitalism has some faults and that they have easy fixes I get labeled a socialist, or when conservatives whine about things liberals supposedly do, by doing that same thing.
elephant37020 5 days ago
Im cant debate you questioning the poverty line. It would be taking the debate away from provable facts and we could go on and on questioning everything. The percentage of "blacks" under or at the poverty line being 55% in the 50's and around 25% now, is a fact.
YoungTon22 5 days ago
@YoungTon22 I'll take your word on the percentages, but they don't really prove very much as the very definition of poverty was different then from now. As to whether your stats prove that welfare programs have lifted folk out of poverty, I'm sure they have for some, but then in the 50's and 60's the economy was booming. There were jobs for poor who were prepared to take advantage of the help. Thats not the case now. How much has the percentage on welfare dropped in the last decade?
vandpubsell 4 days ago
@vandpubsell I never said welfare programs lifted people out of poverty. Welfare is a net, not a lift.They lifted themselves out of poverty. I just used the statistics as proof that welfare doesnt destroy all "black" communities or poor "black" families lives. Welfare acted as a safety net
YoungTon22 4 days ago
@YoungTon22 I never thought you did. Please understand me that when I said welfare lifted people out of poverty I meant, like you, that it enabled people, gave them the opportunity, to lift themselves. I've no problem with that. I don't mind welfare as a safety net. Its when people use it as a hammock that I object. And there are people who do. And their numbers are not declining.
vandpubsell 4 days ago
Jesus I wish this guy would shut up.
ParadoxPerspective 6 days ago
What inane, vapid projection. Especially in defense of fruits like Coulter and Limbaugh who have, literally, called for people to do just that: shut up
Surely, there is noting flawed about the 'patriotic' conservative stance, nothing twisted in conservative media, and conservative policies that got us into this mess to begin with.
No, let's just invoke a massive no true scotsman fallacy. Everything bad? Arbitrarily 'liberal', People not listening to us because we're batshit insane? Censorship
Mathenaut 1 week ago
Bravo, Andrew!
PrincessSyntax 1 week ago
THE OMEGA CRUSADE will never shut up! Take up the crusade at:
theomegacrusade.blogspot.com
Carlos101010101 1 week ago
There are far too many stupid points in this video to dive into just one. "Obama is trying to bring down the free market system by spending". Stupid,unprovable, and not unique to Obama. "You are racist if you say welfare destroys black families lives". Maybe because it begs the question, why are you not talking about "white" families also, who happen to be 50% of the recipients?
YoungTon22 1 week ago
@YoungTon22 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 week ago
@marionetemanJ Youre on the wrong video and youre also barking up the wrong tree but good luck with whichever fairy tale you believe. Food for thought. If there were overwhelming evidence and historical evidence to prove these claims, by definition it wouldnt be faith or belief than would it. Again, good luck with that
YoungTon22 1 week ago
@marionetemanJ No its not. Everythign you said is just an opinion and completely not backed up by any evidence...
TheRedLuigi 1 week ago
@YoungTon22 Simple answer. Half the recipients may be "white", but "white" families make up far more than 50% of the population. Whereas Blacks make up only about a sixth of the population, but a far higher proportion of the recipients. Being on welfare isnt a great position to be in for anyone, but the point is its obviously much more of an issue in the black communities.
vandpubsell 1 week ago
@vandpubsell: About 65% to 70%. Blacks do tend to be poorer than whites for the most part, btw.
MiracleMile90 1 week ago
@vandpubsell That doesnt really answer the question. So does welfare destroy "black" families lives but not "white" families lives? Relying on social programs is much more of an issue in "POOR "black" communities" for obvious reasons like the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE US. In the 50's, the majority of "blacks" were poor. Now, only a quarter are under the poverty line and rely on help. Thats only 2 or 3 generations
YoungTon22 1 week ago
@YoungTon22 Welfare programs affect everyone equally - they have more of an affect on black communities simply because a much larger proportion of black families are on welfare. As for your charge re the history of the US - maybe, but do you want to see that situation perpetuated? Being utterly reliant on someone else for the everything is very bad psychologically for any adult. It leads to chronic ennui, no motivation and a lack of self-confidence. Its the new slavery.
vandpubsell 1 week ago
@vandpubsell you are falling for the liberals class warfare trap . Thanks to them welfare is an equal opportunity affliction. and don't forget it was there socialist policies that got rid of the jobs in the first place. us poor people don't get anything from subsidies and we did not vote for them. attack fascism only (they hate that word by the way) restore Americans commercial rights, and welfare will dissolve all on it's own.
halloranedward 1 week ago
@halloranedward err...I kind of think I said it was an equal opportunity affliction...
vandpubsell 1 week ago
@vandpubsell Did you know that 75% of social program households have at least one income? So "relying on someone else for everything", isnt an informed statement. Also, how does welfare affect "black" families disproportionately? I understand you saying that "blacks" use welfare at a higher percentage, but as I said, in the 50's, more than half of all "black" families were at or below the poverty line. This type of welfare became available in the 60's. Now it is 25%. Isnt that prosperity?
YoungTon22 1 week ago
@YoungTon22 I didnt say welfare affected black families disproportionately. I said it affected Black communities disproportionately, which must be true because a higher proportion of black families are on welfare. Its immaterial that 75% have an income - that one income is obviously insufficient, or they wouldnt be on welfare! Therefore they are dependent on others to make up the slack. They may be more prosperous, but its a false prosperity because they are not earning it.
vandpubsell 1 week ago
@vandpubsell The video said "black" families. We are talking about the video. It isnt immaterial that 75% have an income because you said "relying on someone else for EVERYTHING....". Now you are going back on what you said, saying "they are dependent on others to make up the SLACK".A contradiction. "false prosperity"? You must have missed my point. They ARE earning it because that portion that rose above poverty and out of/arent on welfare. Remember, you have to qualify for welfare.
YoungTon22 6 days ago
@YoungTon22 You're quibbling over words. The point of Klavan's argument is simple and it is clear. Dependency on others for your needs (whether complete or partial - obviously partial is not as bad) acts to sap self reliance, self esteem, and ambition. Its not good for people psychologically (and economically very bad for everyone else). It destroys black families because a much higher proportion of them are on welfare (and for no other reason, in spite of YOUR insinuation).
vandpubsell 5 days ago
@vandpubsell Youre stumbling over words and have already contradicted yourself. I heard his point. I disagree with the rhetoric therefore I dont honor his point. I thought that was already understood.
YoungTon22 5 days ago
@YoungTon22 How do you reckon that? I said "Being utterly reliant on someone else for everything is very bad psychologically for any adult" That is not untrue. If 75% of welfare recipients have an income (and Ill take your word for it - I dont know the exact figures) that means that their income is insufficient for their needs, which means that others must be picking up the slack. That is not untrue either. The two statements are not contradictory.
vandpubsell 4 days ago
@vandpubsell No its not true that all welfare recipients are "reliant on someone else for EVERYTHING" and YES, welfare "picks up the slack" for working families but these statements contradict each other.
YoungTon22 4 days ago
@YoungTon22 But I didnt say that ALL welfare recipients are reliant on someone else for everything. You are intuiting that. I just made the broad statement that being "utterly reliant on someone else for everything is very bad" (which is true). It was only after that you made the point that 75% of welfare recipients have an income that I pointed out that still means they are partially dependent on others. The two statements are not contradictory. Now address the argument please.
vandpubsell 4 days ago
@vandpubsell You didnt say "some welfare recipients" either.anyways, I totally agree with you on having distain for the people who use welfare as a hammock. There should be reform that makes it extremely hard to do so.
YoungTon22 3 days ago
@YoungTon22 You might give me the benefit of the doubt - we only get 500 characters here! :) Anyway, while agreeing with you in general, I would point out that bringing in reforms to reduce welfare fraud without at the same time adversely affecting those in genuine need is extremely hard to do.
vandpubsell 3 days ago
@vandpubsell True,but I think it has to be done to make welfare trully work as the simple safety net that it is.With all that said, I think Americas fucked up.There are nothing but extremely hard decisions to make that guarantee someone will always get the short end of the stick.Not to mention,corporate interests are being put in front of our interests just for money.Rampid ignorance,racism,misinformation,stupid laws and codes,"stop at the line though you cant see it" revenue traffic cameras,...
YoungTon22 3 days ago
@YoungTon22 How else do you check to make sure welfare is being used properly but with more administrators, means tests, and enforcement? All of which will be expensive and (justifiably) very unpopular. I agree, there are nothing but extremely hard decisions to make and for sure someone is going to get the short end of the stick. But then, that has always been true since the year dot.
vandpubsell 2 days ago
@YoungTon22 Part 2. Just because you don't like the way someone puts something doesnt mean their arguments should be immediately dismissed. Klavan is a political pundit and they often go over the top in order to get a reaction. However, the point remains - social programs like welfare are often counterproductive. Sure, they solve the immediate issue - people are no longer struggling financially - but they create great and enduring social problems for the future.
vandpubsell 4 days ago
@YoungTon22 And another point...what is the poverty line? Its a very arbitary evaluation and usually only relative to the average in the population anyway. It varies considerably from country to country and year to year. 25% below the poverty line today compared to 50% five decades ago might just mean we have reclassified what counts as being in "poverty"..
vandpubsell 1 week ago
@vandpubsell So....I used the poverty line becasue its a real number that signifies virtually all "black" welfare recipients.Im not here to teach,but ill tell you that it measures the ability to obtain/or purchasing power of basic needs in a given country .Its not a number that the they just pull out there ass like youre insinuating.It does not vary considerably from year to year in the US(unless you have a different definition of considerable) and of course it varies from country to country
YoungTon22 6 days ago
@YoungTon22 Its not a made up number in the sense that they fiddle the calculation, but who defines what are "basic needs"? I can guarantee the "basic needs" of the last generation were different. Who defines what level is "basic"? And of course the line must be redefined constantly - if only because both the cost of items and the purchasing power of money is always changing. Some "poverty lines" are based on a % of average income, which tells us more about equality than poverty!
vandpubsell 5 days ago
This guy doesn't even know how to use a straw man argument right. Seriously? Yes, when faced with someone as dumb as this man saying "shut up" is a good idea, but I doubt anyone has actually done it. Try watching something other than fox news, or just asking the nearest person that isn't to the far right of reality, and you will find a arguments for liberalism.
nixthenamed 2 weeks ago
@nixthenamed "and you will find a arguments for liberalism"
That about says it all.
dirtmound 2 weeks ago
In addition to "shut up," I would like to add "You're ignorant!!" as a typical response.
iwontreadyourreply 2 weeks ago
I'm thinking in making a video heavily inspired by what you're saying, but in French and adapted to France, to show the "shut up" argument by the left, and the right, used against the nationalists. I may plagiarize a few sentences here and there.. because the situation is the same and you resumed it perfectly well, but I'll make my own video for it, and not use any sound or footage from this one. Do you mind?
Wotanraven 2 weeks ago
@Wotanraven As long as you're not being physically aggressive towards anyone, feel free to do as you like.
slaughtz 1 week ago
The "shut up" response from non-conservatives is short for "We've explained several times why your 'ideas' are intellectually bankrupt, dishonest, and disconnected from reality. We're not going to waste our time with your simpleton arguments anymore. If you can't come up with anything new that is grounded in reality, then kindly shut up." If conservatives don't like the "shut up" response, then they should consider looking into this inconvenient thing called 'reality'.
mtheory85 4 weeks ago
@mtheory85 So, it's somehow not reality that Obama added more to the national debt in his first year than Bush did in his first term? I know. I know. "Shut up." Or, how, in reality, it's impossible to get yourself out of debt by taking out another credit card, once all the ones you have are maxed out? Oh, yeah. "Shut up."
We get it. Liberals, like yourself, are idealists. You want to help people. The problem is, the time for idealism has passed. We need realism. I know. "Shut up."
CaitiffFTW 3 weeks ago
@CaitiffFTW No, actually that wouldn't be reality. For one, Bush didn't even put the Iraq war on the national budget, which Obama did immediately after stepping into office (3 trillion). For two, a trillion-dollar stimulus package was required to stop the economy's free-fall that started at the end of the Bush administration, and most economists have argued it still wasn't enough. Sounds much nicer when you don't mention that most of the money was spent cleaning up after Bush, doesn't it?
mtheory85 3 weeks ago
@mtheory85 There are two problems with your logic. First, unemployment was worse WITH the Obama stimulus than the Administration and the CBO claimed it would be WITHOUT the stimulus. In fact, unemployment is STILL higher than what Obama said it would be without the stimulus.
Second, your response is "It's all Bush's fault, so shut up." Obama voted for the Bush stimulus. Obama signed his own. They BOTH FAILED! And, you're gonna need to cite references on your economist claim.
CaitiffFTW 3 weeks ago
@CaitiffFTW Yes, unemployment was worse than originally predicted. What's your point? The fact of the matter is that unemployment was going to get a whole lot worse without it. So what if Obama voted for the Bush stimulus? You'd have to be completely irresponsible not to vote for a stimulus. The crucial difference is that only Obama's stimulus had an adequate requirement of accountability. Reference: tinyurl(dot)com/yhegsxp
mtheory85 3 weeks ago
@mtheory85 That's just it, though There is no way of knowing what would have happened. We know the estimates. We know what actually happened with intervention. And, by the way, in Paul Krugman's economics classbook, he says that the Great Depression was a time of economic growth. I don't believe a word he says, especially after his "fake alien attack" comments.
And, for the record, you'd have to be VERY irresponsible to vote to spend money that doesn't exist on things that won't help.
CaitiffFTW 3 weeks ago
@CaitiffFTW Saying that there is no way of knowing what would have happened is like saying that there is no way of knowing what would have happened had you not pulled your parachute after jumping out of an airplane. The housing market crashed. The stock market was plummeting. Unemployment was shooting up. Hard to argue that it would have magically stopped. Krugman's "fake alien attack" comments were just an example to show that when people have a shared goal, it bolsters the economy.
mtheory85 3 weeks ago
@mtheory85 The stock market crashed because people were getting home loans that they couldn't pay. Those loans were given out due to regulations enacted by Clinton. But, it's Bush's fault, right?
And, you're right. There is no way of knowing what will definately happen if you don't pull the cord. You know what's likely to happen. But, 1 in a thousand walks away from that.
There is no room for "what would" have happened. You heard the claims, and you see what DID happen. That's it.
CaitiffFTW 3 weeks ago
@CaitiffFTW The housing bubble was part of the reason, but the 'regulations' enacted by Clinton, namely the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (sponsered entirely by Republicans who dominated both the House and Senate and required Clinton to sign the bill in return for passing the Community Reinvestment Act which helped disenfranchised communities), were actually deregulations that allowed commercial and investment banks to merge. I think I'll take my 999 out of 1000 chance of needing a parachute.
mtheory85 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mtheory85 4 weeks ago
So true
theultimaterockr 1 month ago
that was sweet, I think he coined a new word I'll try to spell it "shutupery"
Levistarks 1 month ago
I like how he tries to make Conservatives out to be the "victims" of stereotypes and labels, but then decides to call some Liberals "Communists." A well-spoken Glenn Beck. Fox, give this guy a show!
metahipster92 1 month ago
@metahipster92 he did not call any "liberals" "Communists."
badgerattoadhall 1 month ago
Well, this is the stupidest thing I've seen today.
wyndam71 1 month ago
@wyndam71 That remark is so predictably liberal it's almost laughable. A derisive comment with no factual integrity, no compelling argument brought to the table, and nothing of value contributed to society whatsoever. Do you realize how stupid you are? You validated everything he said in that video with your comment that essentially said, "Shut up." No counter argument provided, no flaws pointed out, simply a childish insulting attack. May God have mercy on your soul.
PIAF22 1 month ago
@PIAF22 I'm required to respond to something lacking in factual integrity with factual integrity? No, I long ago given up on trying to reason with stupid.
Furthermore, did you just call me childish and in the next breath invoke your imaginary friend? Seriously?
wyndam71 1 month ago
@wyndam71 lmao Did you really just say "...I long ago given on trying to reason with stupid." Well, sir, as soon as you support what you say with facts, I'll consider respecting your arguments, which for the moment, are nonexistant.
positronicum97 1 month ago
@positronicum97 Your respect or lack thereof is meaningless to me.
wyndam71 1 month ago
@wyndam71 lmao cool story bro.
positronicum97 4 weeks ago
I agree with his point/purpose and some of the liberal bashing, but I strongly disagree with some of the details, which are either misinforming or such strongly conservative biased BS you would expect to hear. -- My stance, same as it ever was, being independent because both "sides" are full of shit.
Jayremy89 1 month ago
Wow. All I'm reading from liberals is the same horseshit that they always say: Fox lies, Conservatives are "Big Money" puppets, and all that same crap.
WalkerSupporter 1 month ago
Uprate that comment below about this idiot having no idea what "Net Neutrality" is :P
WhitebreadnMayo 1 month ago
@WhitebreadnMayo no
positronicum97 1 month ago
I'm fairly certain Net Neutrality was created to prevent ISPs from pushing the websites, services, and software that they want by throttling or outright blocking competitors or people they don't like... not telling people to 'shut up'.
Alargator 1 month ago
Please ... comparing liberals to communists is like comparing a pat on the shoulder to a gunshot to the face.
Trash videos with clever catchphrases are still trash.
Youloush 1 month ago
This video is trash.
ChronoStrifeFF7H 1 month ago
Did he really say that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity argue. As for Limbaugh I have never heard him debate a soul but himself. And as for Hannity, well, as long as the SHOW has his name on the marquee ther won't be much of an argument. Anyway...
vidfann 1 month ago
I thought "shut up" was Bill O'Reilly's favourite phrase.
bittercottoncandy 1 month ago
Net neutrality is not censorship, what the fuck. Freedom of speech (for all, even those you disagree with) is the most vital right.
emikochan13 1 month ago
Why is net neutrality a "shut up" doctrine? Doesn't it make sure that the internet companies are unable to filter your content, no matter what it is? That seem to be the opposite of "shut up." But I agree with everything else.
BuckandRider 1 month ago
BTW liberals are not against free speech and as far as i know many liberals such as myself believe in the free market and we believed that the government is allowing wall street to create monopolies which in fact DESTROY capitalism. I personally disagree with Fox News and Rush because of chronic lies! they often mislead people which i think is wrong, i think giving your opinion on facts is good... making up your own facts is not, specially when you have media influence.
scratchfg212 1 month ago
"the gazillion dollars in spending..." 60% of spending goes to defense... if conservatives (and Obama) were really against spending they should cut the trillions of dollars in defense and not social aid which in fact once had a surplus. Some republicans have gone as far as denying assistance to hurricane victims! this is what you guys advocate for? i hope not, you really should stop trying to antagonize liberals so much and start focusing on the problems whit the system.
scratchfg212 1 month ago
So freakin' TRUE!!! Keep the awesome vids comin Klavan!
jymstone3 2 months ago
I am a conservative, and just because I think that we shouldn't lose American dollars and American soldiers for dependent nations means I am anti-semetic? This is total Ben Stein bullshit. Anyone with half a brain can see through it
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
wait... so when conservatives attack the left, its not about shutting up, but if the liberals attack the right... it is?
WHAT?
ZombieNopali 2 months ago
Comment removed
kizzume 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, did you right wing-nuts enjoy getting the shit kicked out of you in Ohio, Maine, Mississippi, and Arizona last night? Soon GOOF-ernor Walker will be shown the door. And if Christy thinks he will be President someday, he is in for a big surprise. 99% baby, 99%.
vdarte 2 months ago
@vdarte dear left wing idiot i would like to advise you to watch bill whittle the bridge in your mind and three and a half days..maybe he can force some good politial values into your squishy little mind (:
juliajuly4th 2 months ago
Actually, yes, when Democrats push for the "Fairness Doctrine" and "Net Neutrality" that would allow the Federal Government to dictate content... their war against anyone who is not politically correct gets ramped up.
They actually want to force an outlet that is funded by conservatives to also broadcast Leftist propaganda, to enforce "fairness" and "neutrality".
They're like the Cuckoo's egg. They'll force you to burn up your resources helping their cause.
VerumJusticia 2 months ago
Comment removed
igottogether 3 months ago
Net Neutrality is about making conservatives shut up? Is he serious?
Talk about not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
MrChadsimoneaux 3 months ago
@MrChadsimoneaux How about providing half decent argument instead of saying "Shut up"
hooplablahblahblah 2 months ago
@MrChadsimoneaux Talk about an example of how accurate this video is.
I always hear libs saying that conservative need to learn the facts. I just never hear them citing any.
frogsoda 2 months ago 2
@MrChadsimoneaux no sir it is you who knows not what he is speaking of
juliajuly4th 2 months ago
Bin Laden and Qaddafi sure felt Obama's soft approach, didn't they?
How about you shut up, right after you admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
This is merely a suggestion, of course, not an order. Free speech allows you to be as crazy and as wrong as you like. And hopefully, thanks to continued net neutrality, that won't get you censored in the future, either...
OolTube02 3 months ago
The liberal tactic for an argument seems to be a woman's tactic as well.
richcsst 3 months ago
Dear Conservatives,
Please take back America! Enough with political correctness.
carlo5678 3 months ago
"Net Neutrality" is a leftist plan to inhibit the free speech of conservatives online? Seriously? I suppose I could use these remaining 361 characters to explain why that's the most idiotic thing I've heard in the past month, but I realize that anyone who would say that (or take it seriously) is already far beyond any appeal to "facts" or "reason." I shouldn't be surprised though - this coming from the same website that recently confused a pound sign with a "bizzare neo-Swatstika."
0bjective2All 3 months ago
in my country they brand you a nazi, a right-wing extremist, a baby killer, a racist, an islamophobe, an anti-social freak, an idiot, or just someone who likes rich people (whom every sane person hates more than anything else in the world). and they tell you to shut up. and they make sure they erase you from their friends list on facebook. and they start giving you strange looks when they see you, refusing to talk to you.
topperheartramada 3 months ago
212 people have said "Shut Up!" ;)
MeeleyMan 3 months ago
Congratulations Klavan, you have a strong opinion.
Who gives a crap? I mean really?
I'm not going to tell you to shut up. I'm just going to ignore you.
psusac 4 months ago
@psusac People other than you give a crap. Ignore away.
lima33ful 3 months ago
@psusac "i'm just going to ignore you"... while Obama's Brown coats silence the opposition for good. Just sayin, the Nazi's (National Socialist German Worker's Party) are leftist, and their favorite thing to do was silence and ignore the opposition (just like Liberals)
Nationofhonor 3 months ago
@Nationofhonor You really need to look up lables like "socialist"
Just because the Nazis called themselves socialist doesn't meant they practiced socialism. Also, lots of socialist nations exist that are NOT totalitarian dictatorships.
Your logic is "nazis are bad, nazis called themselves socialists therefore socialism is bad"
This is the child-like reasoning that Glenn Beck is famous for.
Learn to look for vews that contradict your own. It will help you learn how to think.
psusac 3 months ago
@psusac You're such a Liberal know it all. The Nazi's did practice Socialism, and if you even for 1 second believe that they were right wing or something like that you're an idiot. I hope you turn into a conservative when you grow up and become mature.
Nationofhonor 3 months ago
@Nationofhonor And YOUR such a conservative DOODIE HEAD! :-P
We live in a nation where there is NO representation any more for the vast majority of people, where elections are all owned by big money on both sides, and you and I are disenfranchised.
You insist on dividing the world into "liberal vs conservative" and ignore the fact that NO party represents your rights or interests.
Truely you are a product of our mass propaganda culture. Take the blue pill already!
psusac 3 months ago
@psusac You're a moron, you probably did take the blue pill (the ignorance one) I have already taken the Red pill, and I for one can see how ignorant you are. I don't belong to a party, I belong to an Ideology called conservatism, it isn't a party, it is an Idea written in stone that seems to work better than all other Ideas thought up so far. I do not split the word into "liberal vs Conservative" I view the world as good and evil, you must view the world as nothing is evil and nothing is good.
Nationofhonor 3 months ago
@Nationofhonor Got it. You are a "black and white" thinker.
Good to know. Hope that works out for ya.
psusac 3 months ago
@psusac You are a common thinker a sponge, you soak up whatever is brought to you. Let me know how that turns out for you.
Nationofhonor 3 months ago
@psusac Oh you are absolutely right why do we always point to the failures and human rights violations of the nazi's and the USSR and soviet China whenever we discuss socialist government why do we never point out the tremendous creativity and advances in the sciences and quality of life improvements of other socialist regimes such as...uh.....well. Help me out here do you know of a socialist regime that is not engaging in individual creativity suppression and human rights violations??
cogit8able 3 months ago 11
@cogit8able Your miss my point. We have this "boogie-man word" called socialism that the right trots out any time anyone suggests that there is anything that can ever go wrong with capitalism ever.
The rich have used the open corruption of our political process to drive the economy into the ditch. This is a consequence of capitalism. But we can't talk about that can we?
I don't want socialism. I just find the right's rhetoric annoying. We need solutions not mud slinging.
psusac 3 months ago
@psusac And you miss my point the fix to capitalism is a free market which is what we do not have . The more we embrace government interference the more corrupt we get . That is how we get crony capitalism where big money put their puppets in office . In a free market when goods cost exceeds their value people quit buying and they go out of business or adjust their cost . We need to let healthcare sink or swim and adjust their cost. Same with companies and banks
cogit8able 3 months ago 13
@cogit8able I don't know where to begin. How is it ever possible to have a free market? Businesses dont' want free markets. They want monopolies. What goverment has ever failed to manipulate it's market? Printing money, passing laws and deploying police and military are all goverment functions that will ALLWAYS have financial consequences.
You throw "free market" around like it means something. How about you define that term for us?
psusac 3 months ago
@psusac In a free market there are certain pre conditions. Among which are government agencies that ensure that people only deal with each other by choice. That force is only used against individuals and groups who wish to coerce people to participate with traders against their wishes.
And the government agencies would move against traders who were in collusion with each other to manipulate the price of goods or services.
I don't believe there is a truly free market anywhere on Earth today.
BrianWheatley69 3 months ago
Dude i love your videos they make me think alot and realize how bad our society is and how bad it sucks
BatmanBeyondVolcom 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i could say the same about bill oreilly.
TheAngryarchangel 4 months ago
Ahhh, the censorship on the left is a problem that rivals that of the censorship on the right.
ReasonIsADivineGift 4 months ago
@ReasonIsADivineGift Shut up.....
Thistlesifter220 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thistlesifter220 Thanks for proving my point.
ReasonIsADivineGift 4 months ago
@ReasonIsADivineGift & what forms of censorship occur on the Right? Talk radio hosts invite their opponents on regularly. Fox News commentators do the same.
If Lefties want a counter protest against, the TP rallies, go ahead and watch as there is no attacks upon them. During the Bush admin there were many protests against Bush and Bush did nothing to stop them. So what censorship is there on the right?
Aegius 4 months ago
I have no use for Democraps but I have less use for Republicon biggots like Hannity, MILF Coulter and Limbick! lol
kzanika 4 months ago
Liberals love America so much that they want to change everything about it.
muddywood 4 months ago 2
lol 3:14 lower left vid is loading
nebechhofer 5 months ago
That was very good
But, there are different divisions besides simple Liberals and Conservatives. This video doesn't address the problem of Neo Conservatives - New Conservatives taking over the leadership of the Republican Party and Conservative think tanks - and these Neo Conservatives use the same Shut Up tactics against thus of us who argue against foreign wars for foreign interests and who want strict immigration controls. They tell us to SHUT UP - You're a FASCIST/NAZI same as the Left.
lastpaganemperor 5 months ago
this is so incredibly stupid
EandMB 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EandMB Why do you say that?
BRexxors 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EandMB >>>this is so incredibly stupid<<<
Andrew, see? The libs are still coming out telling you to shut up.
MarkQuinn2k7 5 months ago
@EandMB
Make an argument as to why it's stupid, or..........Shut up
Skybaby79 5 months ago
@EandMB Yeap...Make an argument or.............shut your twat!
BetuliaLiberata 5 months ago
@EandMB stfu, stfu, stufu, stfu. No, you're stupid. Nah nah nah nah. Please envision me sticking my tongue out at you as I say all this to you. That is about the quality of most leftist dialogue.
ALTERED13TH 5 months ago
I really think Mr Klavan should watch a documentary on Youtube titled The Collectivist Conspiracy
kd7one 5 months ago
OweBama is the leader of the tea party.
Without his quadrupling of Bush's deficit (who never was very fiscally savvy or conservative) the movement would have never got legs.
We don't care who the politician is, republican, democrat, (that may be redundant) black or white, we just don't think we are getting our VALUE out of the taxes we pay. Simply put - our politicians spend OUR money STUPIDLY!
All we ask is that our politicians spend OUR money like it was their OWN!
ChimpBama 5 months ago
really obama a disaster impossible *scarcasism got to love it*
50TNCSA 5 months ago
You too Andrew! Don't SHUT UP!
KomodoSoup 5 months ago in playlist Andrew Klavan
I never used to define myself as conservative but I also didn't identify with liberals. Since I didn't go along with what liberals said I was labelled conservative. I was dropped by friends for not agreeing with them. I've realized now a conservative is anybody not in complete lockstep with liberal dogma. Liberals are one narrow band of hate-filled fanatics, and conservatives are anybody else. Liberals are actually doing much more recruiting for conservatives than any conservatives are.
LightningChimp 5 months ago 53
@LightningChimp Very well written.
mcs700gmail 3 months ago
@LightningChimp same thing in europe. if you don't agree with the leftists they just brand you right-wing.
topperheartramada 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LightningChimp "Liberals are actually doing much more recruiting for conservatives than any conservatives are."
Very true. I used to be a die-heart bleeding-heart liberal. Then I left home, moved to a blue state and did a complete 180. Now I'm a die-hard libertarian.
janelikesjoe 1 month ago
Net neutrality would prevent Time Warner (CNN) from blocking NewsCorp (FOX) websites. What blocked you from doing a few minutes of research to save yourself from sounding like an ignoramus?
Webveloper 5 months ago
Comment removed
Webveloper 5 months ago
liberals say shut up to conservatives is because conservatives are full of bullshit! Simple.
meggatonman 5 months ago
@meggatonman If conservatives are full of BS, then demonstrate it by pointing it out. Saying "shut up" really gives credence to the conservatives as it gives reason to believe that maybe the conservatives have good ideas.
Aegius 5 months ago
@Aegius obamas 'soft approach to tyrants'? Gazillion dollars of taxation? no movies supporting the war on terror? welfare policies destroys black families? 'leftism' fail everywhere? Europe is anti-individualist, anti-religious and anti-patriotic and are flacid and passive? i smell a lot of BS
meggatonman 5 months ago
@meggatonman Soft approach to tyrants = meeting them personally & kissing their butt(i.e. Chavez). "gazillion dollars of taxation" = $1.5+ trillion annual deficits. Highest deficit under Bush '43 = $465 billion. Please name me a movie that supported the war on Islamic extremist terror. Welfare policies since LBJ(1965): 24% of black infants and 3.1% of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 6 % for black infants, 18% for whites. cont...
Aegius 4 months ago
@meggatonman Europe has become largely atheist as only about 10% of Europeans are religious Christians. Anti-individualist? They have become social welfare states that are now collapsing. Anti-patriotic? They don't believe in themselves and handing over their sovereignty to the UN. Flaccid and passive? They were wimps during the Cold War and mostly do nothing in response to Islamic terror. So what BS?
Aegius 4 months ago
@Aegius Yea and about 90% are non-'religious' christians, the separation of church and state means that doesn't matter. And Europe is NOT a collection of collapsing social welfare states, put together they have a WAY bigger economy then anyone else. Nobody has handed anything to the UN except maybe soldiers, and wimps during the cold war? They were the ones on the frontlines stopping the USA and the USSR from annihilating everybody, which they succeeded in doing.
meggatonman 4 months ago
@meggatonman Actually yes Europe is a collection of collapsing social welfare states, b/c the money has run out and debts have piled up big time. Their sovereignty per treaties has been handed over to the UN. & Frontlines? Only via pressure from the US. MILLIONS of Europeans protested frequently against standing up to the Soviets.
You have no idea what you are talking about on ANYTHING.
Aegius 4 months ago
I understand having an opinion and I understanding tuning your program to the ideals of that opinion... but this is as biased and blind as Fox News.
And I rarely ever hear John Daily say sh*t about Democrats, they do stupid shit just like Repubs. Why the hell do we have so many satirical comedy acts exclusively poking fun at one group?
Its not the group, its idiotic individuals and ignoring that allows their ideals to spread to other individuals forming an idiotic group.
MadBagOfHorses 5 months ago
After watching a few Andrew Klavan on the Culture videos I was intrigued and for the most part happy to hear the way Andrew explains some things. After a few more I started to notice a focus trend. This video mostly confirms that trend and its no secret from Klavan's perspective, I'm sure - that he's heavily biased towards right wing idealism.
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly all love using the term shut up and use it exactly the same as Klavan depicts left wingers. Biasd focus AK.
MadBagOfHorses 5 months ago
@MadBagOfHorses Right wing idealism as, in a limited government that exists to protect the individual freedom of its citizens and not take their money to fund welfare programs?
I'm all in.
CarlosMarti123 5 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting Democratic ideals what so ever. Just saying that foolish ideas and biased individuals exist on both sides of the fence. Honestly my biggest problem is that we still feel the need to segregate and align ourselves with a group and its overall focus. News mediums especially.
MadBagOfHorses 5 months ago
Like the man. I live in Germany where shut-up is on the march too.
Know how to fight "political correctness"? Just don't do it.
caleoquay 5 months ago
Today I was threatened with death for not shutting up. For speaking out against the common media line in the UK. The left have failed and now all that remains of them is empty threats.
Gilambesh 5 months ago 27
@Gilambesh did you listen to the speech of this man?...Khaled Abu Toameh
InnerMittenSignal 3 months ago
Actually the rationale in the liberal argument is that you have to spend money in order to cause economic growth: Keynesian economics.
ReasonIsADivineGift 6 months ago
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are liars who use lies and strong wording to get their point across. This man is defending those two people by saying they are getting wrongfully attacked and lied about when in fact they do more of it then the people HE is attacking. Such hypocrisy one will see the most in the GOP. It is also wrong to tie the film industry with Democratic politicians, when in fact politicians have no say on what the film industry puts out.
TheDasright 6 months ago
there is nothing more dangerous than a man with a vision of utopia
Dondarhosen 6 months ago
One man's hunger is not caused by another man's love of diamonds. It is cause by lack of food. A rich, evil, greedy, suite wearing, cigar smoking's love of diamonds actually helps! He buys the diamonds at the store and the 3 or 4 employees there get paid, to which then they buy food, and thus do not starve. Then again, you problably didn't think this far huh?
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
"One man's hunger is caused by another man's love of diamonds."
NO, NO, & NO.... One mans huger is caused by HIS lack of FOOD. My possession of a diamond in no way has any effect on how much food you eat. Please, please people, actually THINK.
DirkBladerunner 6 months ago
I'm curious... would you agree, that an American citizen CEO, who is currently earning, say, 3 million per year after tax, would be unpatriotic if they relocated to another company overseas, if that meant they would earn the equivalent of 4 million per year, as a result of dodging extra taxes and regulations?
If you say this is not unpatriotic, why?
mcpencil 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Never shut up!
lnfideI 6 months ago
Go spread your propaganda some place else Ivan.
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
"And get the fuck out of afghanistan, and stop spending trillions on useless military equipment" you would like that wouldn't you Ivan? Please, don't tell us how to fight our wars, and we don't spend it on "useless equipment". You are just mad because we kicked your slavic ass in the military build up during cold war. Go cry about it. If your upset about money not going to science, blame Obama. He's the one who shut down NASA.
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@Fr33Gangsta3
Who's Ivan? I'm not even Slavic.
How exactly are capitalists paying for the entire middle class? More like exploiting.
The wars in iraq and afghanistan have been disasters, and have not really achieved that much. They have been profitable for the military industrial complex. Every time someone commissions another fighter jet or aircraft carrier, that's a direct transfer of wealth away from the middle and lower classes.
And why shouldn't churches pay land tax?
mcpencil 6 months ago
@mcpencil The United States of America has the second highest corporate income tax IN THE WORLD. The bottom 46% or so don't pay any income taxes at all. If things were actually "fair" in America, you, and ALL of the middle class would be pissed. The wars in Iraq and Afghan aren't disasters. What we have acheived in Iraq is a country that isn't like Iran, and an Iraqi govenment that will hold out for as long as it can to stop the fundamentalist Muslims. In Afghan, we killed Osama....
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@mcpencil and severely crippled the AQ. So what if the industries that makes weopons are great. It just makes us a better country, however, one thing I will say, is that we could cut down on funds. Ummm..... you do understand that the military is responsible for protecting America right? The middle and lower and rich ALL pay taxes and it goes to military. A strong military means safety and security. The best means the most pull with other countries. Why should Churches pay?
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@mcpencil The reason why America was founded is so religions would be left alone. Churches are apart of religion. In fact, you can't even make a law about an establishment of religion (churches). BTW, the end result will be gatherings in homes. So all that will end up happening is that Christianity will be driven underground.
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@Fr33Gangsta3
No, it was founded so that people could be free FROM religion. Separation of church and state. Why should I be subsidising meetings of myth-believers with my own tax dollars?
mcpencil 6 months ago
@mcpencil The establishment clause in full in the Constitution: "CONGRESS shall make NO LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." No sir, this is to protect religions and churches from the government. It isn't "subsidising", you are prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@Fr33Gangsta3
How exactly does land tax PROHIBIT people from practicing their religion? That's like arguing that income tax PROHIBITS people from working. It doesn't.
RE: Corporate income tax, I was talking about individuals, not companies. People earning huge amounts should be taxed more heavily. Also, In an ideal world, CEOs would not be making millions. Unfortunately, this presents the problem of them leaving the country and working elsewhere, which makes it unrealistic. Greedy, unpatriotic.
mcpencil 6 months ago
@mcpencil Like I said, churches that can't pay, will be driven underground. All you will be doing is driving them away. These individuals own the companies sir. They go overseas already JUST WITH THEIR BUSINESSES ALONE, because the businesses are taxed WAAAAYYYYYY too heavily. Greedy: for trying to keep their livelyhoods? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO JUDGE ME, OR ANYONE ELSE?!?! They aren't breaking the law FUCK YOU!. Anti free market is unpatriotic. Just like you.
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@Fr33Gangsta3
Yes, as I said, CEOs who currently make multimillions, would abandon their country, just because they could save a few bucks of an already unnecessary high amount. It's not about keeping their livelihoods, they are already set for life. What difference would it make to their happiness if they were earning 5 million per year, vs. 4 million? It's about satisfying their greedy nature for EXCESS... more properties, more luxury cars, paying off the trophy wife. So, that is unpatriotic.
mcpencil 6 months ago
@mcpencil I mean livelyhoods by how they live their life. Again I say to you, who are you to tell anyone how they should live their life? Who are to tell them what will or will not make them happy huh? In reality, YOU sir, are greedy. You are quite materialistic in your nature, yet you say that you are fighting against materialism. You are very covetous, you covet your neighbours house(property), your neighbours car, and your neighbours wife. You are unpatriotic because America is a Capitalist.
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@Fr33Gangsta3
I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives, because unfortunately I am not in a position to influence policy. I am merely sharing my ideas about what would make for a better society. One man's hunger is caused by another man's love of diamonds. Society would function much more smoothly, happily, and harmoniously, if there were neither extreme lows in income, nor extreme highs (like people earning many millions per year). The free, unregulated market does not maximise wellbeing.
mcpencil 6 months ago
@mcpencil NO duh you aren't in a position of power, and I am glad, so stay out of power then because your ideas are bad quite frankly. And one man's hunger is not caused by another man's love of diamonds. It is cause by lack of food. A rich, evil, greedy, suite wearing, cigar smoking's love of diamonds actually helps! He buys the diamonds at the store and the 3 or 4 employees there get paid, to which then they buy food, and thus do not starve. Then again, you problably didn't think this far huh?
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@mcpencil BTW, an unfree, pharoah state doesn't maximise wellbeing either. You cant legislate "well being"(define please), you can only create an environment that will give the opportunity for the most people posible to do what makes them "happy"(my definition here).
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago
@mcpencil Here, in the meantime, you are Marxist. I have already explained why they shouldn't pay land tax. The churche's clergy members are not tax collectors you fool, this is against Christianity. Appeal to the "dumbfuck religious right." God bless you sir, though you may hate me and all of my brothers because we are Christians, know that I still love you, though I don't like how you have been playing god this whole time. You are Biblicly illiterate sir, Biblical education IS education....
Fr33Gangsta3 6 months ago