Goldwater was not off on either Communism or civil rights. Communism is real and is alive and well in the USA. Civil rights, as we understand the term today seems to harken to Human rights such as life, liberty and property. Segregation was the states pushing people around while Integration was the Federal Government pushing people around. Do you have or not have a natural right to assemble with another person(s) for any reason you choose? If you do not, then you are being forced to assemble!
The contractors & companies involved in the military industrial complex want to keep THEIR free money; all the special interests representing foreign aid (eg Egypt, Africa, Israel) want THEIR free money; the special interests representing handouts from the government (eg teachers unions, Medicare/SS etc) want to keep THEIR free money.
One can go on but the bottom line is that thru massive media influence the public is told which candidates are “viable” and which aren’t. That's how it works.
@TulliusVII Reminds me of tonight's vote in Ohio where the "voters" passed a referendum protecting government workers rights to Unionize. Humm... Private sector pays all the taxes for the state to spend. Government workers get paychecks from the government fueled by the private sector. Yet those who benefit from forcing others to pay them get to "vote" to expropriate even more from private sector payers. What a con game!!! Government workers should be banned from voting in this referendum!
Obama is worse than GW Bush? I can't imagine a more idiotic statement. considering the dead and broken lives plus the trillions of dollars wasted by GW Bush.
Whether it's deficit spending or war-mongering abroad, Obama has outproduced Bush within only three years in office when it comes to the former, and he's been just as bad if not worse than Bush when it comes to the latter. Did Obama end the war in Afghanistan? No, he sent more troops. He started a brand new war in Libya and another one in Yemen. Add to that his overt Marxism, his bank bailouts, the bailouts of GM, Obamacare, and his disastrous jobs bill(s), and yes, he's been worse.
@joelthomaspeterson Sorry. To much overt fearmongering for me to take seriously. Why not turn of whatever hate media you enjoy and go out and enjoy your liberty instead?
Here, I'll get you going in the right direction. From Reason.com:
"The Obama administration is on pace to have more American soldiers killed in casualties related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the George W. Bush administration did in its first term.
Already, hundreds more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan during the less than three years of the Obama administration than during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration."
@337noname: "We will spend a life time cleaning up the mess GW Bush made. Blame whoever you need to. I blame those responsible."
Yes, we will. George W. Bush was a horrible president. Indeed, I called the man evil in my other post. I'm not defending Bush. What I'm doing is attacking your position that Bush was worse than Obama has been, which, given the criteria you cited to support this combined with the actual facts on the ground, is nonsense.
@joelthomaspeterson Obviously people here don't like my opinion but I've yet to hear any one make a case why it it wrong. If Obama ever starts a war based on lies and keeps its cost off the books, I will rethink my opinion.
A favorite tactic of people losing a debate is to introduce red herrings and to repeat (assert) over and over again that they're winning the argument. This, they hope, will distract the other participants and the audience from what's really happening. This is what noname is doing now. He has offered nothing but opinion here, with no shred of actual evidence to back up his mindless claims. So, to prevent him from proceeding further in his effort, I will provide a handy recap: (cont 1)
Noname began by stating his disagreement with Jack Hunter's claim that Obama is worse than Bush. He then introduced the following criteria for why he thinks Bush has been worse: 1) dead and broken lives, and 2) trillions of dollars wasted. Now, I assumed, based upon the context, that by "dead and broken lives" noname was referring to wartime casualties, and since noname has yet challenged me on this assumption, I will carry continue forward with this assumption. (cont. 2)
Now, in response to noname I referenced a reason.com article entitled, "Obama gets a blank check for endless war," which reports that after only 2.5 years in office, more Americans have lost their lives in the war efforts in Afghanistan under Obama's watch than were killed during Bush's entire 8-year reign. In Iraq, also, American casualties have been on the rise under Obama as compared to Bush. (cont. 3)
I also pointed out the numerous wars Obama himself has started since taking office less than three years ago. Although there are more, the two I mentioned were Yemen and Libya (Libya now being under the hands of al-Qaeda friendly Jihadists, our supposed "allies" in this conflict). So I think it's safe to say Obama has GW beat in the "dead and broken lives" category, especially if you factor in time in office. Next, we move on to "trillions of dollars wasted." (cont. 4)
I pointed out to noname that the deficit has exploded under Obama, even more than it did under Bush. According to NPR, "During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush." This is thanks to Obama's Marxist and fascist policies, which would include his bank bailouts and bailouts of GM. (cont. 5)
Even on military spending Obama has Bush outdone: "According to government figures, military spending under Obama is higher than it was under former President George W. Bush. Total Defense Department budget authority for non-war and war spending increased 3.6 percent from fiscal year 2009 to 2010, according to Pentagon budget data. Obama requested $708 billion in budget authority for war and non-war spending in fiscal 2011, an increase of 2.5 percent." (cont. 6)
To these points noname never even attempted a rebuttle. Instead, as StrictlyStock noted, he resorted to Alynskite sarcasm and classic leftist drivel about "hatemongering" in order to divert attention away from his lack of argumention. He later moved the goalposts, stating that If only Obama starts a war based on lies and "keeps its cost off the books" (whatever that means) will he (noname) rethink his position. (cont. 7)
To this I pointed noname to a handy YouTube video documenting Obama's dishonest rhetoric leading up to and into the war in Libya. Obma said we had to get involved in Libya to avoid a "bloodbath," but according to Human Rights Watch Kaddafi wasn't carrying out a massacre against civilians but rather "narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government." (cont. 8)
Obama also assured U.S. citizens that he wouldn't send ground troops into this unconstitional of his in Libya; but then, sure enough, he later deployed 2200 Marines to the coast of Libya, proving once again that he is a liar who will say anything he deems necessary in order to get want he wants. And these are only a portion of the lies, half-truths, and dirty tactics employed by Obama concerning our involvment in Libya. (cont. 9)
So, to wrap up, every criteria that noname has thrown out there so far to damn GW Bush as being worse than Obama, has in actuality -- when the facts are examined -- shown that the opposite is true, that it has been Obama who has outdone Bush on warmongering, death and destruction, and wasteful spending both at home and abroad. In short, noname has shown he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. There's the argument, noname. Either respond by point or accept defeat.
@joelthomaspeterson Nice red herrings and false claims you throw out. Anyhow like I said - We will spend a life time cleaning up the mess GW Bush made. Blame whoever you need to. I blame those responsible.
@337noname 'Twould appear you've had a bit too much of the Obama Kool Aid.
Bandying about empty accusations such as "fearmongering" and "hate media" hardly qualifies as even a semblance of a credible defense. Only an Obama Zombie would post such drivel.
@MrStrictlyStock Still I can't imagine a more idiotic statement than "Obama is worse than GW Bush". Your assumptions and knee jerk ad hominem attacks about me and/or my comment are fun but pointless. They sound like the fearmongering crap one hears in the hate talk media not anything a rational conservative or liberal would say.
@joelthomaspeterson "Obama is worse than GW Bush? I can't imagine a more idiotic statement. considering the dead and broken lives plus the trillions of dollars wasted by GW Bush."
If you're going to quote me don't leave anything out. In my life time maybe LBJ or Nixon have been as bad as GWB. Obama is not even in the same ballpark.
@337noname Only the Libtards continue to bad mouth Dick Nixon. He balanced the budget more times than not, he was the environmental President, and he got us out of the debacle in VietNam. But what ticks the leftists off the most is that he shut down their attempts at seizing power.
Jack! You are my alter ego, my other self! I know you know the origin of that phrase. This video is as if you were reading my mind. Perfectly expressed by friend.
You may be right about the menu of republican nominees, but to worry about that just seems to be the real core of what so called conservatives seem to pine after anyway. I wouldn't say that the critics of obama are right about anything they actually say. More so they do not identify his problems properly, because we all know it would be hypocritical. And deficit spending, even in terms of GDP, is the one of the last critiques in terms of drawing up any substantial comparison. Excuses really.
Realistically, we have three alternatives: 1. Bankrupcy, which is what we'll have if current policies continue, or if we have another establishment Republican administration like Bush's; 2. Socialism with all of its high, conficatory taxes, which is what we'll have if Obama has his way; or 3. Constitutional, i.e., limited, government, with the American people taking care of themselves, which is what a Paul administration would pursue. Take your pick.
All I know is that media does free advertising of Perry and Romney 24/7. While the good Dr. has to spend 2 million dollars just to let people know he exists.
Romney doesn't even need to use his war chest to advertise in any of the 4 primary states. Come to think of it, most of the polls showing Romney in the lead is strictly based on name recognition compliments of MSM.
You're too idealistic. There is SOME connection between conservatism and the Republican Party, but historically it is tangential at best. The GOP is just a political party; conservatism is a disposition that has found some space there, but many of the left-labor positions are infinitely more "conservative" than what the GOP stands for. It is, as it never tires of telling us, "The Party of Lincoln." Never forget that.
I greatly admire the way Jack has a very realistic cynicism and yet he fights the good fight anyway. Someone like Romney will likely rise on the big money to sustain the corrupt status quo. However, there is a glimmer of hope in the way the tea party constitutionalists have changed the debate and even won a few seats. Perhaps like a drug addict America needs to fall even lower before real change can happen. At least Jack can take pride knowing he wasn't passive in the face of our decline.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson
The root of the corruption is unlimitted debt-currency by the Fed.
@yakyakyak69 Good quote, and the kind of thing Jefferson would have said, if not for the fact that "inflation" and "deflation" were not used in the economic sense until over a hundred years after Jefferson's death. This is one of those internet truths. This quote has been attributed to Jefferson so many times that it's now true, despite the fact that it isn't. I'm leading a pointless educational battle to correct this falsely attributed quote, knowing that it's doomed to fail.
Massive unending immigration will doom conservatism. As the country becomes more diverse and fragmented, so will the politics. The fact that the Republicans refuse to maount a serious challenge to those that would flood the country with future democrats reveals how stupid the Stupid Party and its members really are. You have not been happy with a president since Reagan? I have not been happy since Eisenhower.
@mrhulot101 Immigrants would be fine if it were not for the welfare system the republicans and democrats support. You aren't going to "stop" immigration.
@evergreenpotato Are you even being serious? This isn't a legitimate response.
You will never stop immigration to our country, never. It isn't about me favoring it over anything else, that's a fact, it's not controllable. However, it wouldn't be a problem at all if it weren't for the welfare system we have today. There is no preset limit to the amount of people a market can support.
If you believe immigration is bad, you can't be a conservative. Markets don't work according to you.
@s0beit By your definition, I suppose I'm not a "conservative," because I believe in America as a nation, not just as a "market." Indeed, I'm not sure you would meet my definition of a conservative, as your attitude sounds more like that of a mere marketeer. It would actually be quite easy to effectively halt further immigration to our country if those in charge had the will to do so; our resources are more than sufficient to do it.
@s0beit "So spend billions of dollars and resources exporting people who would be helping our country if it weren't for the welfare system?"
That's very naive.
"Neocon" sounds like a much better description of yourself than of me. I have no use for the neoconservative philosophy, but you sound like another John McCain or Lindsay Graham. My own views would be more accurately described as paleoconservative--an attitude for which Mr. Hunter clearly has a certain respect.
@evergreenpotato Paleo-conservatives understood that immigration helps people. We had a practically open border policy for decades and decades. Ellis island, your parent probably used it.
You can't be described as ANY kind of conservative, in my opinion.
"Immigration helps people." My god, that's so naive I don't where to begin.
The immigration of the last forty years has been a mainly a destabilizing force in American life, and this is why paleocons like Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan have been very concerned about it. Far from an "open borders" policy, our original immigration law, in effect from 1790 to 1952, specified that an immigrant must be "a free white person."
@s0beit Unlimited immigration has been discouraged from the time of the Alien and Exclusion Act. Those who were allowed were the hardiest and most productive due to the DeFacto "Root Hog or Die" philosophy - there were no subsidies for those who couldn't or wouldn't support themselves.
And in all cases, assimilation was expected and achieved., not the Balkanization we now "enjoy" thanks to the "diversity" crowd.
What "people" do you contend are helped by immigration?
@mrhulot101 Though I voted for Reagan twice, Ike with his "Operation Wetback" did the country far better than Reagan with his amnesty. However, it should be noted that Ike's party had control of Congress far longer than Reagan did. He also was able to have a strong military on the cheap, thanks to the draft. He also had far more honorable adversaries than such as Tip O'Neil, who snookered him time and again over cutting expenditures.
Mr. Hunter, you are the most rational conservative around. You are one of the few people that could influence me to be a conservative, yet I make Barack Obama look politically like Glenn Beck.
Immediate practicality over philosophy is the death blow of fixing a broken system.Instead, we get more and more centralized power, which only serves to shake, rattle and roll a fragile freedom into pieces.
When Bin Laden was killed I got home from school( I'm 15 ) and turned on the news to hear more ,a show came on it was Glenn Beck. I began to watch this show frequently throughout the next couple months until the show ended.Looking to fill my small government, political commentator void, i turned to the internet and found you. Don't ever think you don't change anything you inspire me to think and question. I am now involved in youth government , where i can enlighten other teens.
As long as voters pick candidates based on empty promises, skin colour, gender, accent, and magical plans to rescue everyone - these problems will never go away.
Jack, I think your efforts should be focused on educating the public, not on criticizing candidates.
Ron Paul will not achieve anything on his own, even if he's president.
Nothing does change... hate to tell the most of you, even IF Ron Paul was elected as soon as he was out of office the cycle would repeat. What we need is much smaller regions with their own forms of governments, some call it "states rights", but I don't believe in that. I think we all just need to live with people who agree. There's no fairness in democracy.
"The Tea Party saw the emergence of an honest and robust philosophical conservatism...." It lasted 3 freaking months before it got HiJacked by NeoCons Jack. The First 3 months were about The TSA , the Federal Reserve and out of control system of debt.
Now the Tea PArty is about 1 thing and one thing only the Austerity Joke. It's just cut services and lower taxes but ignore the real cause of the debt problems and most of all ignore the fact that WE DON'T OWE THE BANKS SHIT.
I have been trying to find my way in the political spectrum my whole life , leaning more as a Liberal when i was younger and as of late i'm finding that i'm more conservetive than i thought .
Thank you Jack for your insights , they are not falling on deaf ears .
Since no one actually understands basic business, or economics.. were fucked southern avenger. I mean that's the truth. And since public schooling gets everyone for 18 years, its a losing battle against dim wits. Mob rule... *Sighs*
See, its easy to say.. if I told you to go somewhere, successville for instance, but as you started to take off, I told you had to take a curvey path and I just kept adding five pound weights to you.. you'd never make it. Thats.. our system in the US. Regulation/Tax
Why did Rand Paul vote for the "free trade" agreements with S Korea, Panama and Columbia? They are managed trade agreements only good for multinational corporations.
@southernavenger You just pinpointed the #1 problem with conservitives in this country... They fall for the lies of the Republican party totally ignoring the fact that the two party are at the least a mirror image of each other. They get pulled in on none issues like Don't vote for that guy who will audit the fed and regulate the banks because he is pro choice. And the arguement that bug government is evil but Corporations will do what is right by it's customers because "They need us".
If Dr Paul was pushed by the media in the same manner as Romney,Perry and Cain then we would see a Ron Paul Presidency. The simple truth is our media picks Americas Presidents..
@PalmTrall You may be right to an extent. In the pre internet age I'd say spot on. Most Americans didn't have a clue who Ron Paul was pryor to 2008. Granted, pryor to the current GOP primaries Paul had gotten quite a bit of air time on political & economic news shows but the surge in his popularity since 2008 can be primarily attributed to the internet. In 2008 no 2 candidates utilized the internet better than Paul & Obama and see what it did for both. The internet is key for Paul now as well.
@BradNC11175 Ronald Reagan began his climb when he addressed the 1964 Convention. He tried for the top slot in 1976. He spent most of 20 years becoming a known quantity and building a national base. And this was after a long acting career. Paul has shown little inclination for this until the past 4-6 years. It is to be expected that he hasn't garnered much public attention due to such a short period of national exposure.
Paul ran for president in 1988 under the Libertarian party, so it's simply bollocks that Paul hasn't garnered much attention until recently. Besides, who had heard of Michelle Bachmann until the last few years? Herman Cain? Who outside of Massachusetts knew who Mitt Romney was prior to 2007/2008? Yet all of these people have garnered far more attention from the media (Fox included) than Ron Paul.
People know who Ron Paul is. Most of them are just too liberal to vote for him.
@joelthomaspeterson Ron Paul comes across as a very wise teacher. Only recently has he shown "Fire in the Belly", and 1988 was not a year he was noted for his charisma. Bachman made a few points attacking PrezBO before she announced, and her 5 minutes of fame are about up. Herman Cain is far more charismatic than any of the field.
Ron Paul knows most of the problems and has most of the answers. He just is not good at salesmanship, ans lacks charisma.
Yes, I agree that Paul is not exactly the most charismatic person in the world. But I don't think he's failed to articulate his ideas. People know where Ron Paul stands. The problem, like I said, is that the "conservative" base is too liberal (neocon) to see genuine conservatism (especially on foreign policy) when they see it. In other words, they don't dislike him because he's not charismatic enough, they dislike him because they're liberals.
@joelthomaspeterson Articulation is not of much value in a large society unless one can effectively deliver such articulation
It certainly is great if one can enjoin the LameStream Media to be a part of disseminating one's ideas, but 3 years ago an army of brain dead zombies was able to push a little known community organizer and his ambiguous agenda to the fore
Ron correctly denounces thoughtsof the "American Empire" and the US as the world's policeman. He errs in his assessment of Islam
Listen, I don't want want to get into a argument about this with you. Heck, I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter per se, I just do not think he's gotten a fair shake from the mainstream "conservative" base or the MSM. There is room for criticism of Paul, particularly on immigration (he's far too liberal). What I don't like is seeing people attack him because he's TOO conservative, rather than not conservative enough.
@joelthomaspeterson Ron Paul most definitely has not gotten a fair shake from the Lamestream Media. Neither did Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon.
When one cosiders that most of the schmucks disseminating "news" today are the proud product of a Liberal Arts "education", it shouldn't be any surprise the results.
Ron Paul is the quintessential Libertarian, not something I would categorize as Liberal or Conservative.
@MrStrictlyStock: "Ron Paul is the quintessential Libertarian, not something I would categorize as Liberal or Conservative."
Well, I would say he's neither true conservative nor true libertarian but somewhere in the middle. He is closer to classic libertarianism than conservatism, though, which is part of the reason I can't get behind him. Of course, I think the other candidates are even worse, so if things continue they way they are, I will have to vote third party or not at all.
@MrStrictlyStock I have knowm few men in my life that have charisma and unwavering principle. The President is the CEO, and executor, a man that stands as the last and most formitable defender of the Constitution. If a man of charisma taught you math he might have you believing 2+2=7. Reagan had great chrisma but one of his first acts was to allow Communist Romania to get a million dollar federal loan to build an electric generation plant that benefited Gen. Electric. Was that "loan" paid?
@nalejbank Power corrupts, and that is the reason for the separation of powers. Unless those powers are usurped, it's nigh impossible for one man to significantly alter society.
For most of our existence, would be office holders needed to catch and hold the attention of voters. Ron is too polite, defers to those interrupting him, and doesn't have enough "killer instinct" to go for the jugular. He is up against forces too powerful to be gentlemanly in his demeanor.
@PalmTrall It's funny how all you libertarian anarcho-capitalists advocate a system in which giant corporate media invariably selects America's presidents and then complain about the fact that the corporate media picks our Presidents.
@beholdmyswarthyface0 It's funny you think Paul supporters advocate this type of system at all.. Just in case you didn't know, we don't have true Capitalism. Who do you support? Who would you like to see win the Presidency?
@PalmTrall I would like to see occupy wall street win the Presidency. What bothers me about libertarians is their naive, Utopian believe that "if only we could go back to the early days of Capitalism, things would be better." There's no going back, friend. I need to have a little talk with SA's Jack. I think I can bring him and his followers to my side.
@PalmTrall Though I detest the Lamestream Media, especially it's efforts to palm off it's offerings as "news", the real blame/fault lies with the average American who relies totally upon the pabulum the media dispenses.
Goldwater was not off on either Communism or civil rights. Communism is real and is alive and well in the USA. Civil rights, as we understand the term today seems to harken to Human rights such as life, liberty and property. Segregation was the states pushing people around while Integration was the Federal Government pushing people around. Do you have or not have a natural right to assemble with another person(s) for any reason you choose? If you do not, then you are being forced to assemble!
nalejbank 3 months ago
And Reagan was still an amicable douchebag...ughhh.
davealtabird1 4 months ago
The only fault with Goldwater was his constant fear of Communism, oh and well he was kind of off regarding civil rights.
viletree 4 months ago
The contractors & companies involved in the military industrial complex want to keep THEIR free money; all the special interests representing foreign aid (eg Egypt, Africa, Israel) want THEIR free money; the special interests representing handouts from the government (eg teachers unions, Medicare/SS etc) want to keep THEIR free money.
One can go on but the bottom line is that thru massive media influence the public is told which candidates are “viable” and which aren’t. That's how it works.
TulliusVII 4 months ago
@TulliusVII Reminds me of tonight's vote in Ohio where the "voters" passed a referendum protecting government workers rights to Unionize. Humm... Private sector pays all the taxes for the state to spend. Government workers get paychecks from the government fueled by the private sector. Yet those who benefit from forcing others to pay them get to "vote" to expropriate even more from private sector payers. What a con game!!! Government workers should be banned from voting in this referendum!
nalejbank 3 months ago
Obama is worse than GW Bush? I can't imagine a more idiotic statement. considering the dead and broken lives plus the trillions of dollars wasted by GW Bush.
337noname 4 months ago
@337noname
Whether it's deficit spending or war-mongering abroad, Obama has outproduced Bush within only three years in office when it comes to the former, and he's been just as bad if not worse than Bush when it comes to the latter. Did Obama end the war in Afghanistan? No, he sent more troops. He started a brand new war in Libya and another one in Yemen. Add to that his overt Marxism, his bank bailouts, the bailouts of GM, Obamacare, and his disastrous jobs bill(s), and yes, he's been worse.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@joelthomaspeterson Sorry. To much overt fearmongering for me to take seriously. Why not turn of whatever hate media you enjoy and go out and enjoy your liberty instead?
337noname 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@337noname: "Sorry."
Apology accepted.
"Why not turn of whatever hate media you enjoy and go out and enjoy your liberty instead?"
For you, I would suggest logging off of YouTube and doing a little research for a change.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@337noname
Here, I'll get you going in the right direction. From Reason.com:
"The Obama administration is on pace to have more American soldiers killed in casualties related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the George W. Bush administration did in its first term.
Already, hundreds more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan during the less than three years of the Obama administration than during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration."
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@joelthomaspeterson We will spend a life time cleaning up the mess GW Bush made. Blame whoever you need to. I blame those responsible.
337noname 4 months ago
@337noname: "We will spend a life time cleaning up the mess GW Bush made. Blame whoever you need to. I blame those responsible."
Yes, we will. George W. Bush was a horrible president. Indeed, I called the man evil in my other post. I'm not defending Bush. What I'm doing is attacking your position that Bush was worse than Obama has been, which, given the criteria you cited to support this combined with the actual facts on the ground, is nonsense.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@joelthomaspeterson Obviously people here don't like my opinion but I've yet to hear any one make a case why it it wrong. If Obama ever starts a war based on lies and keeps its cost off the books, I will rethink my opinion.
337noname 4 months ago
@337noname
You're just moving the goalposts now. But here you go: watch?v=0Aup7tdCjQ8. Once again you're caught without the facts, looking like a total idiot.
Lol, arguing with a liberal really is like stealing candy from a baby.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@joelthomaspeterson Adding more facts to support my opinion only moves the goal post closer to my side.
Try to make an intelligent argument before you claim victory next time.
337noname 4 months ago
@337noname
A favorite tactic of people losing a debate is to introduce red herrings and to repeat (assert) over and over again that they're winning the argument. This, they hope, will distract the other participants and the audience from what's really happening. This is what noname is doing now. He has offered nothing but opinion here, with no shred of actual evidence to back up his mindless claims. So, to prevent him from proceeding further in his effort, I will provide a handy recap: (cont 1)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
Noname began by stating his disagreement with Jack Hunter's claim that Obama is worse than Bush. He then introduced the following criteria for why he thinks Bush has been worse: 1) dead and broken lives, and 2) trillions of dollars wasted. Now, I assumed, based upon the context, that by "dead and broken lives" noname was referring to wartime casualties, and since noname has yet challenged me on this assumption, I will carry continue forward with this assumption. (cont. 2)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
Now, in response to noname I referenced a reason.com article entitled, "Obama gets a blank check for endless war," which reports that after only 2.5 years in office, more Americans have lost their lives in the war efforts in Afghanistan under Obama's watch than were killed during Bush's entire 8-year reign. In Iraq, also, American casualties have been on the rise under Obama as compared to Bush. (cont. 3)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
I also pointed out the numerous wars Obama himself has started since taking office less than three years ago. Although there are more, the two I mentioned were Yemen and Libya (Libya now being under the hands of al-Qaeda friendly Jihadists, our supposed "allies" in this conflict). So I think it's safe to say Obama has GW beat in the "dead and broken lives" category, especially if you factor in time in office. Next, we move on to "trillions of dollars wasted." (cont. 4)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
I pointed out to noname that the deficit has exploded under Obama, even more than it did under Bush. According to NPR, "During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush." This is thanks to Obama's Marxist and fascist policies, which would include his bank bailouts and bailouts of GM. (cont. 5)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
Even on military spending Obama has Bush outdone: "According to government figures, military spending under Obama is higher than it was under former President George W. Bush. Total Defense Department budget authority for non-war and war spending increased 3.6 percent from fiscal year 2009 to 2010, according to Pentagon budget data. Obama requested $708 billion in budget authority for war and non-war spending in fiscal 2011, an increase of 2.5 percent." (cont. 6)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
To these points noname never even attempted a rebuttle. Instead, as StrictlyStock noted, he resorted to Alynskite sarcasm and classic leftist drivel about "hatemongering" in order to divert attention away from his lack of argumention. He later moved the goalposts, stating that If only Obama starts a war based on lies and "keeps its cost off the books" (whatever that means) will he (noname) rethink his position. (cont. 7)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
To this I pointed noname to a handy YouTube video documenting Obama's dishonest rhetoric leading up to and into the war in Libya. Obma said we had to get involved in Libya to avoid a "bloodbath," but according to Human Rights Watch Kaddafi wasn't carrying out a massacre against civilians but rather "narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government." (cont. 8)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
Obama also assured U.S. citizens that he wouldn't send ground troops into this unconstitional of his in Libya; but then, sure enough, he later deployed 2200 Marines to the coast of Libya, proving once again that he is a liar who will say anything he deems necessary in order to get want he wants. And these are only a portion of the lies, half-truths, and dirty tactics employed by Obama concerning our involvment in Libya. (cont. 9)
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@337noname
So, to wrap up, every criteria that noname has thrown out there so far to damn GW Bush as being worse than Obama, has in actuality -- when the facts are examined -- shown that the opposite is true, that it has been Obama who has outdone Bush on warmongering, death and destruction, and wasteful spending both at home and abroad. In short, noname has shown he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. There's the argument, noname. Either respond by point or accept defeat.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joelthomaspeterson Nice red herrings and false claims you throw out. Anyhow like I said - We will spend a life time cleaning up the mess GW Bush made. Blame whoever you need to. I blame those responsible.
337noname 4 months ago
@337noname
There are your "dead and broken lives." I've already given you the numbers vis-a-vis the deficit, which has exploded under Obama.
Again, for as bad and evil as Bush was, Obama has indeed been worse. Mr. Hunter was correct.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@337noname 'Twould appear your inability to defend your position gives rise to your ignominius retreat.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
@MrStrictlyStock I defended my position and didn't retreat. You should learn to read.
337noname 4 months ago
@337noname 'Twould appear you've had a bit too much of the Obama Kool Aid.
Bandying about empty accusations such as "fearmongering" and "hate media" hardly qualifies as even a semblance of a credible defense. Only an Obama Zombie would post such drivel.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrStrictlyStock Still I can't imagine a more idiotic statement than "Obama is worse than GW Bush". Your assumptions and knee jerk ad hominem attacks about me and/or my comment are fun but pointless. They sound like the fearmongering crap one hears in the hate talk media not anything a rational conservative or liberal would say.
337noname 4 months ago
@joelthomaspeterson Don't forget the little adventures PrezBO has embarked upon in Africa.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
@337noname: "I can't imagine a more idiotic statement."
I can't imagine a more ill-informed comment. The facts simply don't back you up.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joelthomaspeterson "Obama is worse than GW Bush? I can't imagine a more idiotic statement. considering the dead and broken lives plus the trillions of dollars wasted by GW Bush."
If you're going to quote me don't leave anything out. In my life time maybe LBJ or Nixon have been as bad as GWB. Obama is not even in the same ballpark.
337noname 4 months ago
@337noname: "If you're going to quote me don't leave anything out."
If you want me to quote you in full, partition YouTube to increase its 500 character limit per comment. Otherwise, you'll just have to live with it.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@337noname Only the Libtards continue to bad mouth Dick Nixon. He balanced the budget more times than not, he was the environmental President, and he got us out of the debacle in VietNam. But what ticks the leftists off the most is that he shut down their attempts at seizing power.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
Jack! You are my alter ego, my other self! I know you know the origin of that phrase. This video is as if you were reading my mind. Perfectly expressed by friend.
nalejbank 4 months ago
You may be right about the menu of republican nominees, but to worry about that just seems to be the real core of what so called conservatives seem to pine after anyway. I wouldn't say that the critics of obama are right about anything they actually say. More so they do not identify his problems properly, because we all know it would be hypocritical. And deficit spending, even in terms of GDP, is the one of the last critiques in terms of drawing up any substantial comparison. Excuses really.
hybridmcgee 4 months ago
Realistically, we have three alternatives: 1. Bankrupcy, which is what we'll have if current policies continue, or if we have another establishment Republican administration like Bush's; 2. Socialism with all of its high, conficatory taxes, which is what we'll have if Obama has his way; or 3. Constitutional, i.e., limited, government, with the American people taking care of themselves, which is what a Paul administration would pursue. Take your pick.
evergreenpotato 4 months ago
So... does this mean that Southern Avenger is a hereditarian?
Ishpeck 4 months ago
All I know is that media does free advertising of Perry and Romney 24/7. While the good Dr. has to spend 2 million dollars just to let people know he exists.
Romney doesn't even need to use his war chest to advertise in any of the 4 primary states. Come to think of it, most of the polls showing Romney in the lead is strictly based on name recognition compliments of MSM.
shiftstart 4 months ago
You're too idealistic. There is SOME connection between conservatism and the Republican Party, but historically it is tangential at best. The GOP is just a political party; conservatism is a disposition that has found some space there, but many of the left-labor positions are infinitely more "conservative" than what the GOP stands for. It is, as it never tires of telling us, "The Party of Lincoln." Never forget that.
MarcusCMarcellus 4 months ago
You always make me think Jack and for that I thank you. :)
Nieuws1 4 months ago
I greatly admire the way Jack has a very realistic cynicism and yet he fights the good fight anyway. Someone like Romney will likely rise on the big money to sustain the corrupt status quo. However, there is a glimmer of hope in the way the tea party constitutionalists have changed the debate and even won a few seats. Perhaps like a drug addict America needs to fall even lower before real change can happen. At least Jack can take pride knowing he wasn't passive in the face of our decline.
TulliusVII 4 months ago
Power & Corruption ALWAYS concentrates.
It's the natural way of things.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson
The root of the corruption is unlimitted debt-currency by the Fed.
yakyakyak69 4 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Good quote, and the kind of thing Jefferson would have said, if not for the fact that "inflation" and "deflation" were not used in the economic sense until over a hundred years after Jefferson's death. This is one of those internet truths. This quote has been attributed to Jefferson so many times that it's now true, despite the fact that it isn't. I'm leading a pointless educational battle to correct this falsely attributed quote, knowing that it's doomed to fail.
Liberty4Ever 4 months ago
Where can I find the picture at 4:47 ? Its hilarious!
TheBullionBull 4 months ago
Massive unending immigration will doom conservatism. As the country becomes more diverse and fragmented, so will the politics. The fact that the Republicans refuse to maount a serious challenge to those that would flood the country with future democrats reveals how stupid the Stupid Party and its members really are. You have not been happy with a president since Reagan? I have not been happy since Eisenhower.
mrhulot101 4 months ago
@mrhulot101 Immigrants would be fine if it were not for the welfare system the republicans and democrats support. You aren't going to "stop" immigration.
s0beit 4 months ago
@s0beit So 300 million people isn't enough? This isn't 1800.
evergreenpotato 4 months ago
@evergreenpotato Are you even being serious? This isn't a legitimate response.
You will never stop immigration to our country, never. It isn't about me favoring it over anything else, that's a fact, it's not controllable. However, it wouldn't be a problem at all if it weren't for the welfare system we have today. There is no preset limit to the amount of people a market can support.
If you believe immigration is bad, you can't be a conservative. Markets don't work according to you.
s0beit 4 months ago
@s0beit By your definition, I suppose I'm not a "conservative," because I believe in America as a nation, not just as a "market." Indeed, I'm not sure you would meet my definition of a conservative, as your attitude sounds more like that of a mere marketeer. It would actually be quite easy to effectively halt further immigration to our country if those in charge had the will to do so; our resources are more than sufficient to do it.
evergreenpotato 4 months ago
@evergreenpotato So spend billions of dollars and resources exporting people who would be helping our country if it weren't for the welfare system?
Why are you even on this channel, neocon?
s0beit 4 months ago
@s0beit "So spend billions of dollars and resources exporting people who would be helping our country if it weren't for the welfare system?"
That's very naive.
"Neocon" sounds like a much better description of yourself than of me. I have no use for the neoconservative philosophy, but you sound like another John McCain or Lindsay Graham. My own views would be more accurately described as paleoconservative--an attitude for which Mr. Hunter clearly has a certain respect.
evergreenpotato 4 months ago
@evergreenpotato Paleo-conservatives understood that immigration helps people. We had a practically open border policy for decades and decades. Ellis island, your parent probably used it.
You can't be described as ANY kind of conservative, in my opinion.
s0beit 4 months ago
@s0beit Both of my parents were born in America.
"Immigration helps people." My god, that's so naive I don't where to begin.
The immigration of the last forty years has been a mainly a destabilizing force in American life, and this is why paleocons like Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan have been very concerned about it. Far from an "open borders" policy, our original immigration law, in effect from 1790 to 1952, specified that an immigrant must be "a free white person."
evergreenpotato 4 months ago
@s0beit Unlimited immigration has been discouraged from the time of the Alien and Exclusion Act. Those who were allowed were the hardiest and most productive due to the DeFacto "Root Hog or Die" philosophy - there were no subsidies for those who couldn't or wouldn't support themselves.
And in all cases, assimilation was expected and achieved., not the Balkanization we now "enjoy" thanks to the "diversity" crowd.
What "people" do you contend are helped by immigration?
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
@mrhulot101 Though I voted for Reagan twice, Ike with his "Operation Wetback" did the country far better than Reagan with his amnesty. However, it should be noted that Ike's party had control of Congress far longer than Reagan did. He also was able to have a strong military on the cheap, thanks to the draft. He also had far more honorable adversaries than such as Tip O'Neil, who snookered him time and again over cutting expenditures.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
Mr. Hunter, you are the most rational conservative around. You are one of the few people that could influence me to be a conservative, yet I make Barack Obama look politically like Glenn Beck.
PsychoPunk1965 4 months ago
Try to get more Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin fans to watch SA@TAC videos.
goodinohio 4 months ago 12
How the hell did you get on TV? Guess your well-spoken nature is earning you some air time lol.
LYinKansas 4 months ago
Well said as usual Jack.
Immediate practicality over philosophy is the death blow of fixing a broken system.Instead, we get more and more centralized power, which only serves to shake, rattle and roll a fragile freedom into pieces.
blank557 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Saweeeet Ending! Posted on Ron Paul Flix!
Thumbs up for Ron Paul 2012! VICTORY!!
RonPaulFlix 4 months ago
Comment removed
freedomtourtv 4 months ago
Dear, Jack
When Bin Laden was killed I got home from school( I'm 15 ) and turned on the news to hear more ,a show came on it was Glenn Beck. I began to watch this show frequently throughout the next couple months until the show ended.Looking to fill my small government, political commentator void, i turned to the internet and found you. Don't ever think you don't change anything you inspire me to think and question. I am now involved in youth government , where i can enlighten other teens.
gangpanda 4 months ago 8
@gangpanda you are the future. keep fighting for liberty.
suitabledude 4 months ago
I wouldn't worry too much, Jack. The humans will kill themselves off eventually.
ZombieX13 4 months ago
I would like to use your voice on my GPS, Jack.
itcanbecheezcaketime 4 months ago 4
Politicians are not the problem, the voters are.
As long as voters pick candidates based on empty promises, skin colour, gender, accent, and magical plans to rescue everyone - these problems will never go away.
Jack, I think your efforts should be focused on educating the public, not on criticizing candidates.
Ron Paul will not achieve anything on his own, even if he's president.
The masses are the key here.
LibertyDownUnder 4 months ago
Like the late, great,Tupac Amaru Shakur said: "It's only going to get worse and worse."
RoundenBrown 4 months ago 2
Jimmy Carter!
jatigre1 4 months ago
Nothing does change... hate to tell the most of you, even IF Ron Paul was elected as soon as he was out of office the cycle would repeat. What we need is much smaller regions with their own forms of governments, some call it "states rights", but I don't believe in that. I think we all just need to live with people who agree. There's no fairness in democracy.
s0beit 4 months ago
"The Tea Party saw the emergence of an honest and robust philosophical conservatism...." It lasted 3 freaking months before it got HiJacked by NeoCons Jack. The First 3 months were about The TSA , the Federal Reserve and out of control system of debt.
Now the Tea PArty is about 1 thing and one thing only the Austerity Joke. It's just cut services and lower taxes but ignore the real cause of the debt problems and most of all ignore the fact that WE DON'T OWE THE BANKS SHIT.
russkeller 4 months ago 3
I have been trying to find my way in the political spectrum my whole life , leaning more as a Liberal when i was younger and as of late i'm finding that i'm more conservetive than i thought .
Thank you Jack for your insights , they are not falling on deaf ears .
tgigunner 4 months ago 3
Since no one actually understands basic business, or economics.. were fucked southern avenger. I mean that's the truth. And since public schooling gets everyone for 18 years, its a losing battle against dim wits. Mob rule... *Sighs*
See, its easy to say.. if I told you to go somewhere, successville for instance, but as you started to take off, I told you had to take a curvey path and I just kept adding five pound weights to you.. you'd never make it. Thats.. our system in the US. Regulation/Tax
MRSketch09 4 months ago
Keep on fighting the good fight Jack.
xxNutcasexx 4 months ago
Why did Rand Paul vote for the "free trade" agreements with S Korea, Panama and Columbia? They are managed trade agreements only good for multinational corporations.
megagagnon1 4 months ago
@southernavenger You just pinpointed the #1 problem with conservitives in this country... They fall for the lies of the Republican party totally ignoring the fact that the two party are at the least a mirror image of each other. They get pulled in on none issues like Don't vote for that guy who will audit the fed and regulate the banks because he is pro choice. And the arguement that bug government is evil but Corporations will do what is right by it's customers because "They need us".
JRMCNEA 4 months ago
If Dr Paul was pushed by the media in the same manner as Romney,Perry and Cain then we would see a Ron Paul Presidency. The simple truth is our media picks Americas Presidents..
PalmTrall 4 months ago 58
@PalmTrall You may be right to an extent. In the pre internet age I'd say spot on. Most Americans didn't have a clue who Ron Paul was pryor to 2008. Granted, pryor to the current GOP primaries Paul had gotten quite a bit of air time on political & economic news shows but the surge in his popularity since 2008 can be primarily attributed to the internet. In 2008 no 2 candidates utilized the internet better than Paul & Obama and see what it did for both. The internet is key for Paul now as well.
BradNC11175 4 months ago
@BradNC11175 Ronald Reagan began his climb when he addressed the 1964 Convention. He tried for the top slot in 1976. He spent most of 20 years becoming a known quantity and building a national base. And this was after a long acting career. Paul has shown little inclination for this until the past 4-6 years. It is to be expected that he hasn't garnered much public attention due to such a short period of national exposure.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
@MrStrictlyStock
Paul ran for president in 1988 under the Libertarian party, so it's simply bollocks that Paul hasn't garnered much attention until recently. Besides, who had heard of Michelle Bachmann until the last few years? Herman Cain? Who outside of Massachusetts knew who Mitt Romney was prior to 2007/2008? Yet all of these people have garnered far more attention from the media (Fox included) than Ron Paul.
People know who Ron Paul is. Most of them are just too liberal to vote for him.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago 7
@joelthomaspeterson Ron Paul comes across as a very wise teacher. Only recently has he shown "Fire in the Belly", and 1988 was not a year he was noted for his charisma. Bachman made a few points attacking PrezBO before she announced, and her 5 minutes of fame are about up. Herman Cain is far more charismatic than any of the field.
Ron Paul knows most of the problems and has most of the answers. He just is not good at salesmanship, ans lacks charisma.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
@MrStrictlyStock
Yes, I agree that Paul is not exactly the most charismatic person in the world. But I don't think he's failed to articulate his ideas. People know where Ron Paul stands. The problem, like I said, is that the "conservative" base is too liberal (neocon) to see genuine conservatism (especially on foreign policy) when they see it. In other words, they don't dislike him because he's not charismatic enough, they dislike him because they're liberals.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago 2
@joelthomaspeterson Articulation is not of much value in a large society unless one can effectively deliver such articulation
It certainly is great if one can enjoin the LameStream Media to be a part of disseminating one's ideas, but 3 years ago an army of brain dead zombies was able to push a little known community organizer and his ambiguous agenda to the fore
Ron correctly denounces thoughtsof the "American Empire" and the US as the world's policeman. He errs in his assessment of Islam
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
@MrStrictlyStock: "He errs in his assessment of Islam."
Yes he does, I agree.
Listen, I don't want want to get into a argument about this with you. Heck, I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter per se, I just do not think he's gotten a fair shake from the mainstream "conservative" base or the MSM. There is room for criticism of Paul, particularly on immigration (he's far too liberal). What I don't like is seeing people attack him because he's TOO conservative, rather than not conservative enough.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@joelthomaspeterson Ron Paul most definitely has not gotten a fair shake from the Lamestream Media. Neither did Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon.
When one cosiders that most of the schmucks disseminating "news" today are the proud product of a Liberal Arts "education", it shouldn't be any surprise the results.
Ron Paul is the quintessential Libertarian, not something I would categorize as Liberal or Conservative.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
@MrStrictlyStock: "Ron Paul is the quintessential Libertarian, not something I would categorize as Liberal or Conservative."
Well, I would say he's neither true conservative nor true libertarian but somewhere in the middle. He is closer to classic libertarianism than conservatism, though, which is part of the reason I can't get behind him. Of course, I think the other candidates are even worse, so if things continue they way they are, I will have to vote third party or not at all.
joelthomaspeterson 4 months ago
@MrStrictlyStock I have knowm few men in my life that have charisma and unwavering principle. The President is the CEO, and executor, a man that stands as the last and most formitable defender of the Constitution. If a man of charisma taught you math he might have you believing 2+2=7. Reagan had great chrisma but one of his first acts was to allow Communist Romania to get a million dollar federal loan to build an electric generation plant that benefited Gen. Electric. Was that "loan" paid?
nalejbank 4 months ago
@nalejbank Power corrupts, and that is the reason for the separation of powers. Unless those powers are usurped, it's nigh impossible for one man to significantly alter society.
For most of our existence, would be office holders needed to catch and hold the attention of voters. Ron is too polite, defers to those interrupting him, and doesn't have enough "killer instinct" to go for the jugular. He is up against forces too powerful to be gentlemanly in his demeanor.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
@joelthomaspeterson I'm sure if the World Wide Web existed in 1988, Ron Paul would've been more popular then.
PigsInBlanket 3 months ago
@PalmTrall It's funny how all you libertarian anarcho-capitalists advocate a system in which giant corporate media invariably selects America's presidents and then complain about the fact that the corporate media picks our Presidents.
beholdmyswarthyface0 4 months ago
@beholdmyswarthyface0 It's funny you think Paul supporters advocate this type of system at all.. Just in case you didn't know, we don't have true Capitalism. Who do you support? Who would you like to see win the Presidency?
PalmTrall 4 months ago
@PalmTrall I would like to see occupy wall street win the Presidency. What bothers me about libertarians is their naive, Utopian believe that "if only we could go back to the early days of Capitalism, things would be better." There's no going back, friend. I need to have a little talk with SA's Jack. I think I can bring him and his followers to my side.
beholdmyswarthyface0 4 months ago
@PalmTrall Though I detest the Lamestream Media, especially it's efforts to palm off it's offerings as "news", the real blame/fault lies with the average American who relies totally upon the pabulum the media dispenses.
MrStrictlyStock 4 months ago
Jack is a boss!
FrameByFrameStudios 4 months ago 20
@FrameByFrameStudios fo sho
amagilly 4 months ago