Wanda Sykes Infamous Speech (HQ)

[shawnzi24]

Should call her Wanda Dykes.......haha isnt that funny

[perryandthepoorboys]

This is shameful. A president should not be party to something like this even if he thinks it is funny privately. It degrades himself and his office. Show some class mr. prez!

[Tai1291]

Unless he screws up...lol

[giorio7414]

awwwwkwarrrddd lol!



[guitarplayer4real]

LOL, Sorry Wanda you are sadly misinformed. No one I know who has been ruined by this neophite clown "likes him" at all, quite the opposite.

[kobeballer]

i came to this channel because of the south park videos but going through his uploads he is a grumpy old man republican with nothing better to do than upload hateful videos and mesages

[lostluver23]

shes funny... but the bit about education and wanting to pay teachers higher, i wonder how she feels now about that considering how many teachers are getting fired!

[guitarplayer4real]

@lostluver23 Its even worse than that in my district. My local schools are shtting down anything arts and/ or sport related thanks to this clown. Democrats "The education" party lol... They cant afford it but like the title. The biggest failure in my 50 years, great job Obummer!

[truthisouttheir]

i wonder what she has to say now?

[scotte888]

this is embarassing.

[BookRocky24]

But wat shes sayin is true! shes sayin duh true! and its funny! I dont get how its infamous! its the true but said it in a funni wai! she was hired to be a comedian at duh dinner, not make a speech

[imrnlil]

what a creep.. This administration is failing

[bcolemaqn16]

Wanda Sykes is a foo.lol i luv her

[cloud9acai]

@ 5:19 The only person in the room that wasn't completely full of crap

[cloud9acai]

This is like watching a train wreck. So bad yet you cant look away cause you wanna see the destruction...

[totaLybeetLeJuice]

everyone in the audience is white.. and they are laughing cause they are uncomfortable

[06pimpybabe]

barack obama is a bitch

[liveelg]

Come on she's funny

[totaLybeetLeJuice]

@liveelg is she?

[Susn127]

This is funny...not, Wanda is another no talented hack. She's a lefty celebrity getting by on the coattails of the money Hollywood lefty's.

[alanshanelewis]

lololol so stupid the statement "hollywood lefty's" or "hollywood elite" are only spoken by idiots

[Hilldebrand]

she is not very funny...

[Lizardking623]

No talent skank.

[ektorhugo]

Go Wanda! Congrats on the birth of your twins!

[candidskeptic]

The twins will have the privilege of growing up in a close-minded, ultra liberal household.

They will be nurtured on how to race bait, play the victim card, and think that any1 that disagrees with them is an ignorant bigot.

But ya...Go Wanda. Way to be yet another political fellatrix for Obama.

[THEWEEEEST]

haha...NICE!!

[ChazDawg]

oh so BITTER candidskeptic!!!!!

[candidskeptic]

that may be. but, really it's all fun & games.

[ChazDawg]

you spend way too much time in these forums. get a life.

[candidskeptic]

a person participating on youtube telling another person to stop participating? wow. and what exactly makes "a life"? how/where do I get one, Mr. Hypocrite?

chazdawg: your words and your name make you sound like a resounding douche.

you mad because I made fun of your buddy Alan Jackson with this video? youtube . com / watch?v=VJ_E7Vce8vU

[shawnzi24]

@ektorhugo i thought the world was overpopulated wanda?

[Patricio87]

the patriot act is big government so conservatives are hypocrites

[candidskeptic]

The Patriot Act was enacted by NEO-Conservatives. Taking away personal freedoms and clearly going against reduced government is hardly conservative.

In Reality, the Republicans and Democrats are mostly made up of big government promoters (which truthfully makes them liberals).

211 Republicans in the House voted for the Patriot Act, but so did 145 Democrats. 98 U.S. senators voted in favor of it. Senator Feingold was the only senator who voted against it. Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote.

[iTellYouNoLie]

$378 million=first quarter profit for halliburton, that's just PROFIT, he's still gonna shill out trillions to 'em.

[corthew]

"The government backed these companies"

That has been true since 1933. That doesn't explain this.

"And blame is also on the people who bought homes."

Agreed on that...partly...But the shady lenders weren't exactly honest with the buyers.

Caveat emptor certainly, but these lenders should not have had a free reign. Something was changed that gave it to them.

"you call what Obama is doing, cleaning it up"?

No. But its better than investing trillions in Haliburton.

[candidskeptic]

What is this *SOMETHING* to which you are alluding?

You say "that has been true since 1933." so what is your explanation? how can you say deregulation when you claim the opposite has been occuring since 1933?

People still bought into it. Why do feel the government is trustworthy to keep these swindlers out of "free reign"? What's to keep the government & corporations from combing together? (Oh WAIT, they are combining together: It's called Corporate Fascism).

No1 Has Spent as Much as Obama!

[corthew]

The something is what I'm asking.

What changed.

It wasn't the federal backing.

That already existed.

I'm guessing the something was deregulation of lenders or a change in the rules to encourage more lending which apparently backfired.

Please though, don't make this a "my candidate is better than yours" argument because political bias does not solve problems.

What do you think the solution should be?

Lets discuss that.

[candidskeptic]

I never turned this into a "my candidate is better than yours." But, what this administration is doing is absurd.

Spending trillions of dollars was "unheard of" yesterday, now shrugged off as "necessary" today.

This is economic terrorism.

and your Haliburton point only tells me you think this is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. It's not. Bush had his Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and Obama now gets his turn at a spending spree, but his is in the trillions.

[corthew]

Spending trillions was unheard of, but weren't we in a surplus before the proverbial "tihs" hit the fan?

(yes I spelled it backwards on purpose) :)

Bush and Obama both are trillion dollar spenders.

And although I'm for reduced government in theory, I would be more for a reworking of the laws to bring them up to date.

The laws are there because people are not as trustworthy as we should be.

Its easy to say, "reduce government",

but which laws would you get rid of?

And who would it help or hurt?

[candidskeptic]

Where did I propose getting rid of laws?

And from your words, you hardly sound like some1 who is for reduced government. Just Like I hardly sound like some1 who is for bigger government.

And anyways, I cannot see how any1 who is for smaller government would be supporting this administration, or the last! Once again, I said it was not about democrats and republicans. Bush had big government, and Obama's is even bigger.

But, let me ask: What are your opinions on FDR? The New Deal? Fill me in.

[corthew]

Well...It put people to work.

I'm not sure I completely agree with the idea of paying a farmer not to grow something but it kept farmers from creating an imbalance in their attempts to play the farming game like some play the stock market.

But things were a bit different then than now.

The banks closed their doors then.

People were panicked.

When the stock market collapsed and all the major banks fell, and suddenly a loaf of bread cost a days wages, something drastic was called for.

[corthew]

"Where did I propose getting rid of laws?"

Maybe I don't know what you mean by "limited government".

I'm for personal freedom. I don't think I should have to answer for things I do that don't hurt anyone.

Marijuana should not be illegal.

:)

And getting rid of that law would certainly free up a lot of prison space.

[candidskeptic]

I agree with you on decriminalizing & legalizing marijuana (& all drugs). People should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

But, when it affects some1 else, I have problems. For instance, I think there should be stricter penalties for drunk drivers, especially for repeat offenders.

Although I think they are completely over-the-top, the Every 15 Minutes program does let you know that around 35,000 people die a year from an alcohol related collision. (sorry for the randomness)

[corthew]

The problem I see with legalizing "all" drugs is when it comes to treatment for addiction and crimes committed by them to support the addiction.

But there again, Alcohol is legal and is far worse than many of the drugs that are illegal.

Marijuana would unquestionably be a better recreational drug choice than alcohol.

[candidskeptic]

The person should be convicted for the crime, not being addicted to a drug. The idea that legalizing will lead to addictions, which will lead to crime is fear monger bs.

There are people addicted to drugs or just use drugs every now and then who just keep to themselves.

And anyways, many of the drug charges are based on simple possession. That is absurd.

The drug war further props up the authority of government and takes away freedoms from the people.

And I'll assure you. It is a sick game.

[THEWEEEEST]

most people get into drugs when they are tns think it is som sort of rebelious fun or their friends put them up to it if it was allowed a lot less people would be "rebelling".

[corthew]

Oh...You may have been referring to his treatment of bankers responsible for the problem.

I can see that parallel.

And I agree with you that giving the guys responsible for the problem more money, is the wrong approach.

I have a problem with the banking structure that apparently rewards its executives for just having the title of "executive".

[candidskeptic]

That's exactly what I am saying. He is bailing out the perpetrators of our problems. It's some sick game.

Luckily he has left cover from the media and elsewhere convincing the public that his extreme economic intervention is absolutely necessary and must continue.

[corthew]

I disagree though that it's "some sick game". I think it's more lack of awareness of the underlying problem.

I think questions should have been asked before they were handed the money.

Specifically, they should have been required to show how that money was to be spent.

I don't believe in Carte Blanche.

Not for this type of situation.

[corthew]

Also, I'm guessing you are who keeps giving my messages a thumbs down.

I understand that you disagree with me on some points.

If we both agreed it would not be a very interesting discussion.

But the thumbs down on youtube means that some people will only see your side and will probably be confused.

I know they could change the filter level but I'm betting most don't know how or even that they can.

[candidskeptic]

That's the system we have. Some of them I did 'thumbs down you,' and most of the others were another youtuber/s.

I hope the people that look at the comments can look past the thumbs up/thumbs down.

If people jump on your character, those people are just ad-hominem attackers, and weak debaters. I thumbs down because I disagree with an argument/s.

I have nothing against you, just the positions you are putting forward in this comments section.

[corthew]

On the "Government being trustworthy" thing, I don't know.

The reason Government exists to begin with is to protect us from the "bad guys". :)

That's their job.

Its what we pay taxes for.

Roads and schools and the space race and such are pluses.

But their core purpose is to protect the citizens of this country.

If they can't do that they don't need to be in power.

That's why we have elections.

[candidskeptic]

look @ the countries where governments have been so called the "most protective": China, North Korea, Soviet Union, etc.

These government claim to be protecting the people, they are granted more and more power, and they abuse their power. Bigger Government is NOT the answer. I like limited government and personal freedom. Sure the government should be there, but NOT to this ridiculous level!

The notion that the "only solution to economic downturns is aggressive government action" IS A BIG LIE.

[corthew]

Well, I'm not sure wishing the country would fail can be equated with decent. :)

It goes way past decent.

[candidskeptic]

when did he wish the country would fail? he never said that.

are you just going off what Wanda Sykes is saying?

and its DISSENT, not decent.

[corthew]

If the president fails the country fails.

Don't you remember the movie, Excalibur?

"The land and the king are one". :)

And forgive my misspelling.

[candidskeptic]

"If the president fails, the country fails."?

Disagree. If Obama actually does not get away with all his big government measures, we would actually be a more free & more prosperous country.

The gigantic Nanny State props up government power & makes us more subservient to its will.

If Obama succeeds, this country will have a much better chance of failing.

You are thinking of just *success* in a general sense. The success I am talking about is contextual. Success for obama is failure to me.

[corthew]

I think that's what she was thinking too when she said it.

As for big government measures, the reason we're in this mess to begin with is the deregulation that gave "fly-by-night" lenders more freedom. All those 1% Adjustable Rate mortgages should have been disallowed at the start.

Then they resold their bad loans to corporations who apparently should not have been in the real estate business, so when the interest rate rose to 2% or 3%, and people mortgages payments doubled and tripled, well...

[candidskeptic]

Deregulation is a talking point by this administration. It's essentially a fallacy.

It basically conveys that the Bush government wasn't big enough.

In Reality, the government backed companies, which allowed these companies to make risky decisions. These companies knew they had the government as a safety net. Obama is making this net way bigger, where companies really cannot fail. The merging of big business & government is economic fascism.

We need capitalism. Not bigger government.

[corthew]

The question I'd like to see answered though is, Where the hell did all that money go?

[candidskeptic]

A good deal of the TRILLIONS of dollars is being spent on bailing out corporations, banks, and other big companies.

Nationalizing these companies furthers the power of the welfare state. You can see that with the government firing CEOs of companies. This is corporate fascism.

Do you understand that the money is either being printed out of thin air or taken out of the pockets of taxpayers? All this spending increases debt, increases inflation and destroys our economy.

[corthew]

Not that money.

The money from those bad home loans.

The people who sold their homes turned around and invested their's in new homes.

But the lending companies who then turned around and sold the loans to larger corporations did something with it.

How many were backed by overseas interests? Where were the regulations that should have protected home buyers.

What looked to investors like a "gravy train", proved to be a "train wreck".

Cleaning it up won't be cheap.

[candidskeptic]

did you listen to a word I said?

The government backed these companies. These companies had the ability to run their companies the way they wanted knowing they had government protection.

And blame is also on the people who bought homes. Sure these companies swindled them with false hope. But, no 1 forced these people to buy homes. Buying is a risk.

In the end, the government did regulate! They backed these companies.

Cleaning it up? you call what Obama is doing, "cleaning it up"?