Sean Hannity and Mark Levin debate two Hillary Clinton supporters - Part 1 of 2

[TreeSmoke1999]

Liberal idiots. Fuck you for ruining America and violating the constitution. Ron Paul or any llibertarian is the only group that will make a difference.

[jayhawker53]

What do these women know about war. Nothing! They don't know a lot of things. They seem to be the kind that like to blame other people for their mistakes and not take any responsibilities. They need to go home and grow their asses up.

[shocker147]

Two Democrats that I actually like.

[TheRealRealTalk]

republiKKKans are racist and stupid , its a fact !

[SocialAssasin]

@TheRealRealTalk the republican party was responsible for abolshing slavery you stupid fucking idiot...read a book

[TheRealRealTalk]

@SocialAssasin , blah blah blah everybody knows that , but we are talking about modern times , NOW ! , and now its a scientific fact , fucking idiot !

[nin6246]

I see a lot of hate-filled remarks and strong statements being made by a lot of you. The only way things will be better for you and the people you know is if America experiences a strong growing economy. Regardless of what the media tells you or what the "repeaters" that you may know of say, I would like you all to research what builds a strong economy. Then ask yourself which candidate for presidency not only offers the best solutions but also can actually put those ideas into place.

[RealTime88]

Same thing my ass!!! And Kucinich would have kicked McCain's ass harder than Barack Obama did!!

[1casas]

Lololol mark Kevin is the best.

"bipartisan, bisexual, same thing"

[Rundstedt1]

Economically, 'free-market' Libertarians are nothing more than Neoliberals on steroids. They both want basically the same thing; deregulation, privatization, free trade, the suppression of labor power and all the same economic voodoo that keeps on causing the same sort of crisis that we have today, only even more of it. By removing restraints and weakening the power of gov't in relation to money they bring on a corporate world yet deny it. It's a new Feudalism, a Neo-Feudalism.

[sophomore903]

@Rundstedt1 Deregulation is something i can see as both positive and negative. Positive in the sense that you should have the freedom to enjoy what you buy, as in drugs and other things, and negative in the sense of lower wages and safety standards. I agree with you on privatization. Free trade as in no tariffs? Which libertarian told you they were for that because many including Paul want to create jobs here. Economic voodoo? I feel the same way about smaller govt and deregulation.

[FrankCastlez]

"I just quoted from it."

Fuck you dickhead....I just quoted wicki...

FAIL

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez '

I credited my source, you just plagerized yours.

[FrankCastlez]

Appealing to Liberals with logic and reason is like appealing to cockroaches with soap and light.

[Rundstedt1]

Libertarians are the worst brand of rightist. Their idea of freedom is the market. A market for freedom means that only those who can afford it are truly free. Libertarians are the new ultra-right hidden in the alluring prose of freedom. But it is a freedom few can afford. It is the libertarian camp that wants all of our public assets destroyed; they are the radical privatizers who carry on the Neocon mantra while denying it. Those who believe gov’t doesn’t work have no reason to be in it.

[FrankCastlez]

Liberals are obsessed with demonstrating their putative "moral superiority." Thus even though they live their lives without really helping anyone, the political activism they engage in is dedicated to convincing themselves that they are truly good people.

Its fucking pathetic

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez

Too bad I'm not a liberal, so your diatribe you pulled off some Right wing site does nothing to me except make me laugh and show yourself as a hack propagandist without even his own words to work with.

[FrankCastlez]

@Rundstedt1 is nothing but a hack proagandist using the words by A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup

L@@K familiar dickhead!!

pathetic ass

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez

I credited the source I used, and it is used because it backs up and proves what I said. Don't you know how research papers are written? Probably not.

[FrankCastlez]

Liberals blame everyone but their political pimps.

"A pimp don't steal nothin' but the bitches minds."

-- Anonymous Pimp.

[FrankCastlez]

seriously, The RealMoron, The oxymoron is in equating right-wing socialism with Conservatism. They are polar opposites. That fact remains even after a half century of Liberals trying to erase the noun modified by the adjective "right-wing".

LEARN.

[FrankCastlez]

Liberals are obsessed with demonstrating their putative "moral superiority." Thus even though they live their lives without really helping anyone, the political activism they engage in is dedicated to convincing themselves that they are truly good people.

[TheRealRealTalk]

MarKKK Levin

[TheRealRealTalk]

RepubliKKKans = Nazis

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealmoron you throw the Nazi term around so much...modern Liberals are as much an advocate of unlimited government as are any other type of fascist OR communist. All of which are opposites of classical liberalism.

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez wow i guess you never read a history book ! nazis wasn't about government ! that was just away to have all power to kill everybody who wasn't a white aryan ! the nazis was about the white skin ! just like republiKKKans !! and marKKK levin is a fucking idiot...

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealmoron "Nazis wasnt about govt!

It began with the taking over of the Govt you moron. The oxymoron is in equating right-wing socialism with Conservatism. They are polar opposites. That fact remains even after a half century of Liberals trying to erase the noun modified by the adjective "right-wing".

LEARN.

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez all republiKKKans are either ignorant & racist or greedy & evil . which one are you !  probably ignorant since you really think nazis where socialists , thats just something they said to trick people !! dumb ass !!

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealmoron "Nazi"=The National Socialist German Workers' Party dumb ass!!

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

L@@K it up moron ...LEARN

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez hahaha u are a fucking retard ! , u been listening to your god rush limdouche to much !

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealmoron "listening to Rush.."

WTF does that have to do with your complete ignorance about history?

Speaking of illiteracy,sue whatever teachers' labor union so defrauded your parents, assuming they paid any taxes.

pathetic

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez = idiot

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealRealTalk = pathetic leftist MORON!!

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez  hahaha thats all u got ?! lol

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealMoron "thats all u got?"

Its all I need...with a pathetic leftist moron like you..

yawn

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez = need to go back to school ( not sunday school ! )

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealMoron=pathetic leftist moron

FAIL

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez = OWNED .... hahahahahaaaaaaaa

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealmoron •

"To quote Barney Frank..'On whose penis do you spend most of your time TheRealMoron??"

Bwahahhaha hahahah hahahaha ahahahahahahaha ahhahahahaahh...........

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez sorry i couldn't hear you , take Glen BeKKKs dick out your mouth ! haahahahahahahaha

[TheRealRealTalk]

@FrankCastlez = OWNED AGAIN !!! hahahaha

[FrankCastlez]

@TheRealMoron......

Except for the murder,bigotry and genocide what exactly don’t you like about nazis?

[AlaroxR]

I hate this "left wing" "right wing" crap when a conservative is completely different from a nazi or a facsist while a liberal shares the majority of their philosophy with communists and socialists... in fact, a liberal is closer to a nazi or facsist than a conservative.

[BallisticWic]

Mark and sean are the best

[esj8341]

@BallisticWic

Although they excel in different ways, I agree: they are both excellent.

[1dodgerfreak]

i love mark levin!!! hes freakin hilarious!!!...he knows what it takes to get america great again!!!

[nadine2k101]

ok I admit it, men, especially you conservative men, I hope you enjoy this, for once you're seeing a video clip where the men are smart and the women are made to look like fools.

[ConspiracyChannel101]

@nadine2k101

When did sex have to do anything with this? Liberal drone. XD

[nadine2k101]

we elected the WRONG democrat people. Hillary was the answer.

[orangeblood307]

@nadine2k101 Hilary isn't much different from Obama, she'll lead us down the same road. Ron Paul 2012.

[ahbilyon]

@orangeblood307 ron paul will lead us down too they all dont run shit the man with the most money does.to me they all running together i say vote for our selves fuck em all

[DaHonestAbe]

This is one of the main reasons why cable news just disgusts me overall. These conversations are not productive and are meaningless. Nearly everyone on the panel is annoying as hell. But it's whatever, I suppose.

[eimb1999]

@DaHonestAbe : You just don't like it becaus thios segment shows that conservative logic blows away liberal hyperbole every time it's tried. That's why you don't like these shows. Instead of beoing disgusted with the shows, why not be disgusted at the leftist scumbags who take away your freedom, right from under your nose, day after day after day?

[DaHonestAbe]

@eimb1999 I'll put aside the fact that you implied Hannity and Levin with logic. I hate cable news because it's all sensationalistic garbage. Leftist scumbags? More unmitigated tripe spread by right wing morons. Freedom is eroded daily, and it's done primarily by the right in this country. That includes dems and repubs. I can't believe you replied with such errant stupidity. God people like you are such an intellectual burden.

[eimb1999]

@DaHonestAbe : Right wing morons? More unmitigated tripe spread by left wing scumbags.

See? I can do that too. But I don't expect you to understand anything because you're an idiot leftist. The right? Against freedom? All dictators are leftists. I've yet to see a single TRUE conservative legislate against liberty.

[DaHonestAbe]

@eimb1999 Are there leftist dictators? Yes. Are there rightist dictators?

Miguel Arenas, Alfredo Stroesner, General Pinochet, General Suharto, Mobutu, Franz Tudjman, Raul Alfonsin, Alijah Izetbegovich.

And there are just a few right wing dictators I could name. "TRUE" conservative? Of course I can expect a fucktard right winger to use the no true scotsman fallacy as a shield. Liberty has been legislated against by left and right. Intellectually honest people know this. But not you, of course.

[eimb1999]

@DaHonestAbe : There can't be any right wing dictators. The extreme right are anarchists (no gov't). The extreme left are communists and fascists (full gov't control). Left means more government, right means less government. Simple. That's the basic premise of political dicourse in the modern world. So, if right wingers believe in less government, then how can they be dictators? A dictator can only rule as they do if they have TOTAL government control! That's LEFTISM! IDIOT!

[DaHonestAbe]

@eimb1999 Left and right are determined by who controls the means of production you uneducated moron. I am a social scientist and are fully aware of right and left. Both have small and large gov't ideologies. Peer reviewed articles by all prominent social scientists have slammed the gavel on this subject. The original left and right paradigm was developed in france. The left is fascism? Wrong again! Fascism, which is my specialty, was an extreme right wing movement codified by the elites!

[DaHonestAbe]

@eimb1999 Did you not read the list of dictators I just sent you? Are you this god damned stupid? Of course you are. Social Science has recorded dictators on the left, (Stalin, Tito, Mao, etc) and on the right (Mussolini, Franco, Pavelec, Suharto, etc.) People like you make so damned sick with your blatant ignorance. Again, left and right have nothing to do with the size of gov't. Only the means of production. Again, you fail......MISERABLY!

[Rundstedt1]

@eimb1999

Ahh, the spectrum has nothing to do with the size of gov't, it is about the distribution of wealth and the ownership of productive means. You can have centralized totally privatized capitalist, ergo right-wing states, and decentralized collectivist socialist, ergo Left-wing states, such as the Paris Commune or revolutionary Spain. And anarchists; the real anarchists that is, and not the faux Libertarian ones, originate from the left ala Bakunin as TYH has already pointed out.

[Rundstedt1]

@eimb1999

Right wing dictators are much more common than Left wing ones: from Batista to Hayek's buddy Pinochet, history is filled with Right-wing dictators.

[UmbertoSanchez]

@Rundstedt1 thats because left wing dictatorships always collapse because their principals lead to useless economies. see: Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Venezuela

[Rundstedt1]

@UmbertoSanchez

Ahhh, but none of those countries has collapsed, and that despite Cuba being subject to an illegal blockade that has been the attempt to destroy its economy for decades, and North Korea is a pariah Nation isolated from the world community. Venezuela has weathered the world economic crises better than the rest and is still doing fine, and the rest have ALWAYS been poor nations. And yet Pinochet's Rightwing economy destroyed itself in about a decade. Done.

[Rundstedt1]

@UmbertoSanchez

Ahhh, but none of those countries has collapsed, and that despite Cuba being subject to an illegal blockade that has been the attempt to destroy its economy for decades, and North Korea is a pariah Nation isolated from the world community. Venezuela has weathered the world economic crises better than the rest and is still doing fine, and the rest have ALWAYS been poor nations. And yet Pinochet's Rightwing economy destroyed itself in about a decade. Done.

[unclepic1]

@Rundstedt1 there is no such thing as a right wing dictator in actuality my friend, im not trying to defend Republicans by any means i love Hillary and wish she was our President, but someone who philosophies the right wing in a total form is an Anarchist and actually a far left wing person is the only one who believes in a Dictatorship or total control, our nation which is a Republic is right in the middle of this Political spectrum and their ideas fall under there...

[Rundstedt1]

@unclepic1 (1/2)

Sigh, read what I said about the spectrum; it has nothing to do with gov't interference and such, it is a political economy question. And there are both right and left anarchists, or rather people on the right who have misapplied the term, because anarchy arose from the left, from people like Bakunin. And for Marx the end result of his system was anarchical, is Marx now a right winger? Monarchies want control, are monarchies left wing now?

[zsylvana]

@Rundstedt1 They are nuts.And even steal words!The term,Libertarianism was coined by french 1900 century Anarco-Communist, Joseph Déjacque.Even the term "Statism" remains from him and is in French called "Etatism".Statism is just a translation.They can´t even come up with something original!

[Rundstedt1]

@unclepic1 (2/2)

And those are just two examples of the inconsistent results we get by using the libertarian definition. So don't be silly, the Libertarian version of the spectrum is made up trash. The Spectrum is based on the political economy question I related. And history is replete with right wing dictators, ask von Hayek, he'll introduce you to Pinochet whom he tutored.

"Political freedom without economic equality is a fraud, a lie ... " - Bakunin, a real anarchist.

[zsylvana]

@Rundstedt1 "Having spent a lifetime near libertarians, I can confirm that they are an individualistic idiosyncratic bunch.For example,my conservative mentor Gottfried Haberler was defined by Mises to be a “communist.”

The Hayek I met on various occasions – definitely bemoaned progressive income taxation,state-provided medical care,retirement pensions,fiat currencies remote from gold & subject to discretionary policy decisions by central bank and treasury agents."

Professor- Paul Samuelson-MIT

[DaHonestAbe]

@unclepic1 Absolutely wrong. RW dictators have existed more than LW ones. General Pinochet (Chile) - RW Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay) - RW Raul Alfonsin (Argentina) - RW Ion Antonescu (Romania) - RW General Suharto (Indonesia) - RW King Hassan (Morocco) - RW Mobutu (Zaire) - RW Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua) - RW All Right wing.....in actuality. And the list I gave you is just a few. There are plenty more. More than LW ones (Stalin, K.I Sung, Mao, etc.)

[zsylvana]

@DaHonestAbe Yepp,David!The list is so long.and even today so filled with Right wing dictators,so we could

fill whole the youpage with names!They don´t read!Just watch FOX.

[DaHonestAbe]

@zsylvana Man, you said it Jan. I'm getting fed up with this unmitigated ignorance from the right. You and I (as well as Rundstedt) know that totalitarianism and dictatorship isnt left or right wing specifically. It has existed on both ends of the spectrum. And then we get these fucktards like eimb1999 and unclepic with no education in polisci trying to spout nonsense. I swear, I will fight this ignorance until my last breath. And as we know, I could've listed more RW dictators, ;)

[FrankCastlez]

@DaHonest? The oxymoron is in equating right-wing socialism with Conservatism. They are polar opposites. That fact remains even after a half century of Liberals trying to erase the noun modified by the adjective "right-wing".

LEARN

[DaHonestAbe]

@FrankCastlez Right Wing socialism? No not even close. It's you who needs to LEARN the difference between left and right.Capitalists turned to fascism to protect their immense wealth from the left wing Weimar gov't. Same is in Italy. This libertarian nonsense you pull is completely inane.

[DaHonestAbe]

@FrankCastlez I've put substantial study in this area. Conservatism, in a panic, felt the need collaborate with the reactionary right wing nazis in an attempt to "save" the country from communism. Their shared enmity towards the left is the adhesive that kept them together.

[DaHonestAbe]

@FrankCastlez Sorry champ, but you don't know what you're talking about.

[theyounghistorian77]

@FrankCastlez (1)

The Nazis were NOT "Right Wing Socialists" as whatever that's supposed to be. They weren't any form of Socialist. Period!

"Hitler was never a socialist." - Ian Kershaw, "Hitler (abridged)", p269.

[FrankCastlez]

@DaHonest? RW dictators,As for Pinochet's economic legacy, it outstrips that of most advanced democracies, let alone the economic rubble of all the communist dictators. Within a decade of the 1973 coup, Chile was a stable growing economy transformed by monetary, supply-side, trade and labor market reforms introduced by Pinochet. Chile is now a democracy.

[DaHonestAbe]

@FrankCastlez YEs, but they used force to gain their economy. It wasn't implemented in a so called free manner.

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (1/12)

Actually, within a decade the Chilean economy was in taters thanks to the Right wing junk of the Chicago boys and hacks like Hayek. It was only AFTER the free-market stuff was abandoned that Chile started to make some gains back. Once Pinochet was in, and he started with the 'free-market' garbage:

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCas (2/12)

"GNP plummeted thirteen percent, industrial production fell 28 percent, and purchasing power collapsed to forty percent of its 1970 level. One national business after another went bankrupt. Unemployment soared. Yet by 1978 the economy rebounded, expanding thirty-two percent between 1978 and 1981.With hindsight, however, it is now clear that the Chicago economists, despite the credit they received for three years of economic growth, had set Chile on the road to near collapse."

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (3/12)

"The rebound of the economy was a function of the liberalization of the financial system and massive foreign investment. That investment, it turns out, led to a speculative binge, monopolization of the banking system, and heavy borrowing. The deluge of foreign capital did allow the fixed exchange rate to be maintained for a short period."

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (4/12)

"In 1982 things fell apart. Copper prices plummeted, accelerating Chile's balance of trade deficit. GDP plunged fifteen percent, while industrial production rapidly contracted. Bankruptcies tripled and unemployment hit 30 percent. Despite his pledge to hold firm, Pinochet devalued the escudo, devastating poor Chileans who had either availed themselves to liberalized credit to borrow in dollars or who held their savings in escudos.

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (5/12) The Central Bank lost forty-five percent of its reserves, while the private banking system collapsed. The crisis forced the state, dusting off laws still on the books from the Allende period, to take over nearly seventy percent of the banking system and reimpose controls on finance, industry, prices and wages. Turning to the IMF for a bailout, Pinochet extended a public guarantee to repay foreign creditors and banks."

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (6/12)

So it was not the 'free-market' or Hayek that saved Chile, but a heavy dose of market intervention. Hayek and the 'Chicago boys' only brought hardship and dictatorship to Chile, it was nationalization and Keynesian economics that really saved it.

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (7/12)

"Pinochet allowed Milton Friedman and his cronies, principally Arnold Harberger, along with a small clique of Chilean "neoliberal" economists to implement this "neoliberal" agenda. Here was Friedman's chance to prove himself right and Samuelson wrong. Friedman was given a more-or-less free hand to implement whatever economic reforms he deemed needed, and Friedman did so with a vengeance.

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (8/12)

In a quick succession of reforms, the collective-bargaining law was abolished, essentially eliminating the influence of labor unions. The minimum wage law was abolished. The Social Security System was privatized, by being evenly divided among six companies, each to compete with each other. Public assets were sold, often at bargain basement prices, to whoever would buy them.

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (9/12)

Now, twenty-odd years on, we can see the long term results of "neoliberal" economics: From the beginning of the reforms of the Chicago Boys in 1973 through 1986, there was no economic growth. Real mean salaries, adjusted for inflation, have declined by 10% since 1986 and by 18% from what they were during the Allende years.

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (10/12)

Median salaries have fared even worse, declining by 30% over the same period, signalling a torrent of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. When Allende was in power, less than 20% of the country lived in absolute poverty; by 1990 40% did. That figure has remained largely constant since. A third of the nation now survives on less than $30 per week. Some miracle indeed.

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (11/12)

Enthusiastic supporters of the Pinochet reforms like to point out that since 1986, there has been a 7 percent annual growth rate; what they fail to mention is that this occurred only AFTER1986, after privatization of the banks was reversed, and collective bargaining rights and minimum wage laws were restored; after jobs-creation programs were instituted and privatization of the principal source of foreign exchange was reversed.

[FrankCastlez]

@Rundstedt1 Free Market Fundamentalism:

Friedman, Pinochet and the "Chilean Miracle"

A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup

L@@K familiar dickhead!!

pathetic ass

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez

Yea gee, did you read where my information came from? The article supports me and not you, and I just quoted from it.

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez (12/12)

And they fail to point out that all of that additional wealth has gone into the pockets of the few; the middle class and poor have seen none of it. - "Free Market Fundamentalism: Friedman, Pinochet and the "Chilean Miracle""

So it is quite clear that the 'free-market" Hayek/Friedman inspired garbage almost totally destroyed Chile and has resulted in hardship and misery for its people that only continues today.

[FrankCastlez]

@Rundstedt1 your wrong.

Today, Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations and a recognized middle power. It leads Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, low perception of corruption and state of peace.

you would rather have communist manifesto inacted I see...

pathetic

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez

Bullshit plagiarized directly from Wiki; the worst source. First of all, as said the only gains that have been made were made AFTER 1986 when the 'free-market' garbage was rescinded. And you missed the part about it having some of the worst inequity. And didn't you read what I wrote, adjusted for inflation they have lower salaries than under the Allende period, Chile still hasn't reached the level it would have been at if Pinochet would never have happened.

[FrankCastlez]

@Rundstedt1 "would have been at if Pinochet would never have happened"

it very well would be worse...

Chile is now a democracy..you should be happy...

maybe not ..you are a communist!?

[Rundstedt1]

@FrankCastlez

Chile was a democracy when it voted Allende in and stayed one under his rule it was Hayek and his buddy Pinochet that made it a dictatorship:

"Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power" Hayek in the newspaper "El Mercurio

[bapyou]

@FrankCastlez

Working class conservatives. Taking it up the ass since the Reagan administration. A Proud Tradition.

[zsylvana]

@unclepic1

"There were good historical reasons for fading memories of Hayek within the mainstream last half of the twentieth century economist fraternity.In 1931,Hayek’s Prices and Production had enjoyed an ultra-short Byronic success.In retrospect hindsight tells us that its mumbo-jumbo about the period of production grossly misdiagnosed the macroeconomics of the 1927–1931 (and the 1931–2007) historical scene."

Professor Paul Samuelson, MIT (2009), "A few remembrances of Friedrich von Hayek

[zsylvana]

@unclepic1

"When a centrist like me says this about an extremist like Hayek, readers have a right to reserve judgment...

For my money more to the point was Richard Kahn’s simple oral 1932 statement:

If Hayek believes that the spending of newly printed currency on employment and consumption will worsen our current terrible depression, then Hayek is a nut."

Nobel Awarded-Professor Paul Samuelson, MIT (2009), "A few remembrances of Friedrich von Hayek,"

[zsylvana]

@unclepic1 "As I write in 2007,Sweden & other Scandivanian places have somewhat lowered the fraction of GDP they use to devote through government.But still they are the most “socialistic” by Hayek’s crude definition.Where are their horror camps?Have the vilest elements risen there to absolute power?When reports are compiled on measurable unhappiness,do places like Sweden,Denmark,Finland&Norway best epitomize serfdoms? No.Of course not!" Paul Samuelson-A few remembrances of Friedrich von Hayek

[zsylvana]

@unclepic1 "Hayek himself,naively, diagnosed the fall of his 1931 opus as due to the fact that his period-of-production mutterings there did not do full justice to the not-yet-completed Austrian theory of capital (Menger, Böhm et al.)Therefore,heroically but hopelessly,he wasted years on a task that he was grossly under-equipped to handle"

(Nobel Awarded-Professor Paul Samuelson, MIT (2009), "A few remembrances of Friedrich von Hayek)

[whedonfreak976]

@Rundstedt1 Also talk about Friedman and him making friends with Pinochet, and with the dictators of China, and Friedman even told the Chinese government to use force against the protestors in Tiananmen square. So history is filled with right wing dictators, even today hell look at a lot of the tea party gov. They are like dictators trying to suppress voting rights and take away women's right to chose it is sickening quite honestly.

[theyounghistorian77]

@eimb1999 (1)

No sorry the political spectrum has nothing to do with the size of gov't. The place that one takes on the political spectrum is determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the academic position and all other versions of the spectrum are inconsistent and therefore useless as a definition.

[theyounghistorian77]

@eimb1999 (2)

The spectrum arose from its usage during the French Revolution, where it was those on the Left side who wanted a more redistributive economy, and those on the Right were the ones who wanted to keep gov't control in the hands of the aristocracy and monarchy, and even there has nothing to do with Govt size either. Otherwise you'd have to end up placing Marx on the right and monarchists on the left, which is silly.

[theyounghistorian77]

@eimb1999 (3)

You know Monarchists and aristocrats are also Right wing yes? and they have no qualms about using a larger gov't to achieve their goals. The contemporary American position of what they deem to be 'smaller gov't' is not even the determiner of conservative. Conservativism in general terms, is a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society, Thats it And this can be done with or without the small gov't philosophy

[theyounghistorian77]

@eimb1999 (4)

And US conservatives have shown that when they are in power they have no problem with the size of gov't. The gov't grew under all the recent conservative presidents, but do you know who it shrunk under? Clinton. And if you want the original small gov't ideology look no further than to Bakunin's anarchist school who are socialists or to Engels for he envisioned a "DEATH" OF THE STATE as the final phase of communism. Again Does that make him Right wing now? Only you must think so.

[theyounghistorian77]

@eimb1999 (5)

To quote, "[after the victory of socialism] a special repressive force, the state, is no longer necessary ... State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It dies out." - Engels. "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", "Historical Materialism"

[theyounghistorian77]

@eimb1999 (6)

We know that Berlusconi of Italy is an authoritarian conservative [who has openly taken a positive stance on Mussolini], as are the islamic conservatives in the middle east. so any assertion that conservativism is automaticly about liberty, can be rubbished. It depends on what you are conserving to begin with, in reality. If you need any convincing that Conservatives in the USA too, can also be authoritarian. I Suggest you read Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

[theyounghistorian77]

@eimb1999 (7)

So it's clear, Govt size is not the determiner for left and right, However i repeat, the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general, ie a political economy position.IS THE BEST THE DETERMINER FOR LEFT AND RIGHT

[mrosen9317]

You do realize that no one on the right side of that debate provided any form of factual information to support their argument. Simply reneging on what the other side has to say doesn't win you an argument, it just makes you look ignorant.

[gobacktoschoolmoron]

It was fun to watch that blonde libby bitch lose her temper about 10 times during this clip. Now that may be the run-of-the-mill libby reaction when they're getting their asses handed to them in a debate, but it's still fun to watch.