Tea Party to Elizabeth Warren: You’re a Socialist Whore

Tea Party to Elizabeth Warren: You’re a Socialist Whore


this uh… you use unosom piece about a year the videos even funnier i think in some
ways but uh… elizabeth warren uh… little blue will play the saudi
it’s really stunning she was at trees in brockton mass brockton massachusetts and eyes she was due on a_t_r_ volunteer
speech she’s run of the senate in a about uh… thirty months twelve
months i guess you know she’s run at the senate and
um… i think she still scott primary oaa campaign and on our tactics he still facing
cellmark opposition in the primary campaign what ion and i think most of the big players have
gotten out from the uh… campaign she’s in brockton and uh… she’s about to give ur speech you know it all the parties and some too gets up and uh… stop stock into a she’s from the tea party he’s from a tea
party she’s not she’s in the democratic party uh… you know that she’s been fight and
you know if she’d been fighting particularly for years and years talking about the contracts dad i you know the credit card companies make
its own she said she was you know hahaha va dat
professor and so uh… this dude gets out the audio is a little bit thirty in the
beginning but listen to it and will stop as we go thro here’s the video elizabeth warren speaking to our protest as an excuse me to uh…
supporters volunteers matches supporters volunteers that’s
important okay now listen to it and how constructed we have twelve months out from a
campaign from an election she’s got a room for people in brockton justin brockton literally a look like there was a couple
hundred if not more the amount of the energy in her campaign
out is was still an issue it is huge cut the everyone the dough out your dr jao guide the closet uh… he says sensual a bright day out the gag gets up he says i’ve heard in
uh… print media that uh… you are the intellectual created out of
the so-called that the party i mean the uh… occupy wall street
movement and everybody moans in this and that you
know because it’s guys like off why did he do this dude but she handles
it in quietly well pattern fire accepted para restoring that work it’s hard response there cost next analysis let also what’s the haha often protesting what’s been going on very well the accident created for example everybody else the genetic it looked like rear that so the monitoring the
so when you heard what he said there here he said well if you are the intellectual
created an assault cop body uh… your socialist walk and i want a thing to do with you and then he says and your boss was four of these four in broad and many he takes his backpack instead don last year anne walks to the door flapping did you get hit then and while oven because it does they tried to go out a lot dl so while some she handled that amazingly

100 Comments on "Tea Party to Elizabeth Warren: You’re a Socialist Whore"


  1. This would be a great video, but uggggggggggh we don't really talk like that! The stereotypical Boston accent is SERIOUSLY limited to cops and construction workers.

    Reply

  2. @publicanimal I guess it is better to sellout to wallstreet like Scott Brown has rather than actually want to work for the people. $60,500 Goldman Sachs, $44,650 from the "liberal" GE, Morgan Stanley $24,650. Yeah I would rather vote for the "socialist whore" than the hero of Wallstreet

    Reply

  3. @ferrozm "freedom is a obsolete idea" Is that why Scott brown supported indefinite military detention for Americans as terrorists? Because he believes in freedom. Yeah tell me how free you feel when you see the Army putting Americans in Gitmo and other prisons without trial support by the great patriot Scott Brown.

    Reply

  4. When playing audio or video clips you should really allow them to play instead of stopping them half way through and giving your analysis. Let them play all the way through then give your take!!

    Reply

  5. The assfuck who proceeds to churn out the MOST irritating BULLSHIT as an introduction to this vid….PLEASE FUCK OFF!!!

    Reply

  6. @ThatGuysDaughteR1

    What?

    I think you have me confused with someone else.

    I object to people calling Senator Warren a whore.

    Reply

  7. "Elizabeth Warren's “high cheekbones” fraud draws back the curtain look into the gears and levers of our national race industry. The real story is not that the multimillionaire liberal (and one-percenter) Warren fabricated a Cherokee identity for over a decade (to the delight of her quota-thirsty universities), but rather the notion that if a pink blond at Harvard can get away with faking a career-enhancing minority identity, then anyone, anywhere, can—or rather often has." –Victor Davis Hanson

    Reply

  8. Get over it America, world has changed. These comments about Elizabeth Warren make me sick to my stomach. How hateful country has become makes me sick. Prayed hard for the fall of country, almost did, need to pray harder. When a country passes laws that make it to where you need to hire lawyer just to scratch your ass, time for it to fall. When we values rich and not give a damn about others, time to go! Watch George Carlin vids and see what politicians thinks about you, then get a clue!

    Reply

  9. Sam is from Worcester Mass,the 2nd biggest city in the state about 45 miles west of Boston,he overdoes the accent to be funny.

    Reply

  10. I fail to see how Elizabeth Warren or the Occupy Wall Street movement is responisible for this man being unemployed for 10 months. But if that's the case, he's going to need some of those "socialist programs" to keep him from starvation and homelessness if he doesn't have family to support him until he finds a job. And I am generously assuming that he is unemployed by no fault of his own.

    Reply

  11. Tell that to your "communist" teachers, firefighters, policemen, soldiers, librarians, etc.

    I'm sure they'd love to know how the government can't create jobs without becoming "communist".

    Reply

  12. Calling someone a socialist is not an insult if that person actually believes in socialism. I don't go around the internet looking for teabaggers and republicans just so I can call them "conservatives" and then act like I've made some profound argument. Socialism WORKS, using it as a pejorative only illustrates your ignorance.

    And no, you can't say she lied about her ethnicity because you'd need conclusive proof that her mother didn't have native american heritage.

    Reply

  13. Western Europe, Scandinavia, the USA in the fifties and sixties.

    Socialist policies like medicare, social security, socialised health care, etc. have been staggering succes stories in virtually any nation that adopted such policies (in a fiscally responsible fashion).

    Reply

  14. the fiscally responsible fashion seems an interesting variable. social security will fail miserably. so will socialized health care. they may appear to work temporarily but they always fail over time. they work well for the ruling class as it gives them what they ultimately want: more control.

    Reply

  15. Social security has never cost the state a dime. Even the "great" Ronald Reagan said as much. The only reason they're talking about cutting benefits to social security is because they raided the trust fund for money and don't want to pay it back.

    The idea that socialised medicine is a tool of the "ruling class" is absurd to the highest degree. Socilialised healthcare is the primary reason countries like the UK and france pay significantly less per capita for vastly superior healthcare outcomes.

    Reply

  16. But of course if your only source of information is hollow right-wing ideological claptrap instead of actual facts and figures, the fact that the USA is ranked #23 in terms of healthcare outcomes is not something you'd know about. Nor is the fact that the USA pays more per capita than any other nation for its health care.

    It's easy to see why rightwingers have rely on propaganda, made-up "facts" and bold faced assertions, because it's clear that reality has a liberal bias.

    Reply

  17. you're right, it's never cost the state a dime. it's cost the populace who knows how much money. fuck ronald reagan, i don't see why you assume i would agree with his fiscal policies. 'vastly superior healthcare outcomes'? that's totally debatable. and at what cost? you blow up the state and you enslave the citizenry. the more money the state has, the less you and i will be able to make…….unless we get government jobs!

    Reply

  18. reality does have a liberal bias. as in the term "liberal", which means free. it means freedom from force or at least the initiation of force. what else would you like to force me to do? pay more money? pray to something? force me to work at a job i don't like? force me to have an abortion? force me not to have an abortion? would you like to force me to love someone? i can understand the statist mentality but I want you to admit what you are condoning: collectivism.

    Reply

  19. And I want you to admit you don't even know what you're talking about. What is this "collectivism" of which you speak? What does a society without this evil boogeyman of "collectivism" look like?

    You've invented and deified a notion and now you're blaming all the world's ills on some nebulous concept rather than analysing what's actually the problem. It's intellectual laziness and no better than blaming the devil or the gays or any other ad hoc explanation you can concoct.

    Reply

  20. The idea that you can have "freedom" without some authority is absurd. If there is no teacher, do you think all the children will play nice because of the free market?

    Without governmental power, what you get, sooner rather than later, is a bunch of wealthy/powerful robber barons controlling the populace…..
    Such an improvement over constitutional democracy, I must say.

    Reply

  21. I think you meant to say:

    With governmental power, what you get, sooner (much sooner), is a bunch of wealthy/powerful robber barons controlling the populace……

    Reply

  22. It would most likely be a constitutional republic of some sort. It couldn't be a democracy, that's for sure! "Nebulous concept"? You are not looking at the root of the problem: ideology. I didn't invent the concept of collectivism, it's been around for many centuries. You can't argue my point, so you just attack me and claim I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't appreciate it. You are accusing me of dodging the question while you dodge the question. Peace to you. Good luck.

    Reply

  23. Please explain how a constitution without force to back it up can protect the individual from anyone trying to infringe on his or her rights.

    Please explain how your libertarian fantasy dreamland works. If the government has no power, how do we ensure people play by the rules?

    Reply

  24. You're dodging again. I'm not interested in kknowwing what your libertarian fantasyland ISN'T, I want to know what it IS. So if it's a constitutional republic but not a democracy, is it an Oligarchy? A plutocracy? An aristocracy? How WOULD your fairy-tale society work, SPECIFICALLY?

    Because if all you can describe is how your society wouldn't work, I think it's blatantly obvious you haven't given the subject a whit of thought and you're just angrily railing against things you dislike.

    Reply

  25. I asked YOU about socialism. Which doesn't work and for some reason you wanna think that this time maybe it finally will. Well, we've got it now. Hope you're lapping it up.

    My "fantasy society" would be voluntarist. But hell, I'd be happy with that old rag we used to use nobody seems to give a damn about anymore. How can Americans be so blatantly unAmerican? Actually, don't answer that.

    Go antagonize someone else.

    Reply

  26. So essentially, you're saying that since government is imperfect, we might as well get rid of it alltogether. And once government is gone, since there'd be no-one left to enforce it, the constitution would be just a worthless scrap of parchment, so things would revert to "might makes right" again.

    Brilliant. It's like amputating an arm because you cut your finger.

    Reply

  27. You asked, I answered. You asked for examples of succesful socialism, I gave you 50's/60's USA, western europe, universal healthcare, public education and social security.

    Your response? A bunch of untrue assertions, revisionist history and hollow ideological rhetoric.

    We all know who has no argument here, go be a moron in your libertarian dreamland instead of polluting the real world with your naive and dangerous anarchist ideology.

    Reply

  28. yep. it's already "might makes right" with a monopoly controlling them both. you think you're safer because of that? absolute power does what? you're merely advocating centralized corruption.

    Reply

  29. you gave me a bunch of examples which are collapsing as we speak. hardly examples of 'success'. i haven't personally attacked you but you can't resist attempting to reduce me to some sophomoric right-winger, as if that proves any of your points (which i am not anyway). i assumed you were probably a nice person but i was obviously incorrect. go occupy something for the 'common good', maybe your masters will let you lick their boots while you beg them to keep your civil liberties.

    Reply

  30. Scandinavia is doing just FINE. Western Europe is doing relatively OK considering the economic fallout from the US credit default swap scandal, it's certainly coping better than certain southern european states. Social security isn't "collapsing" (no, not even in the US). Your government raided the trust fund and now it's looking for ways to avoid paying it back. That doesn't mean there's a problem with social security, it means that there's a problem with the coin counters in washington.

    Reply

  31. You act like you've made a profound argument by claiming that my bunch of examples "are collapsing as we speak", but in reality, you're either just wrong (scandinavia, western europe, socialised medicine all hardly on the brink of collapse), or you're inaccuratly portraying a problem faced by one such institution as institutional and inherent, rather than looking at actual causes (say, US social security, southern europe). Either way, you're misrepresenting facts to suit your ideology.

    Reply

  32. And when you get called out on the vacuousness of your political beliefs, when your ideas get challenged by someone who doesn't simply swallow your BS whole, you cry and whinge about how mean and personal I am.

    It's not a fallacy to make a personal attack if it is not used in place of an argument. If you're talking gibberish, pointing that out is not a "personal attack".
    However, dismissing me and my arguments "because I'm mean" IS an ad hominem fallacy. I couldn't fail that hard if I tried.

    Reply

  33. What the fuck is the constitution if not a refutation of "might makes right"?

    And you're once again lazily telling me what you don't believe instead of explaining what is is you're actually trying to accomplish. How WOULD your imaginary libertarian utopia ensure the safety and liberty of its precious populace, if government (force) is taboo? How would the libertarian utopia prevent people from taking other people's liberty?

    Reply

  34. don't flatter yourself, honey. i'm sure you could. now it's obvious that neither of us are changing our minds, so i'd love it if you'd just shut up. you and your three examples of "successful socialism" just aren't enough to convince me that the same system you are advocating hasn't failed thousands of times (meanwhile the uk and western europe are about to have a financial collapse and the us probably will soon too). take care.

    Reply

  35. I love how in your world, our positions are "equally unchangable". I'm actually open to having my mind changed, if a person is able to give a well-reasoned argument and back it up with credible data.
    Unfortunately, I have yet to meet a libertarian who can rationally justify libertarianism, much less cite historical examples. It's all just railing against existing political and societal constructs and then insisting that the magic of liberty is a panacea cure for the world's ills.

    Reply

  36. In insisting that the "imminent collapse of western europe and the USA" is not just a reality, but is caused primarily by "collectivism", it's readily apparent that you have a naive, simplistic understanding of world politics and finances, and instead of trying to get a fuller understanding (for example by trying to refute my arguments or make your own), you stick with your childlike, simple narrative because it is compelling and because it conforms to your ideology.

    Reply

  37. there is no panacea cure for the world's ills. you sound really open minded as you lump people into categories and spew feculent blather about how great socialism is. the problem is that non-socialistic models are rarely found in history and there are obvious reasons why. ruling classes love power disparity. in an open market society people are able to provide for themselves without government intervention. if you are open, i suggest reading "the law" by bastiat. he rails on the US as well.

    Reply

  38. "In an open market society people are able to provide for themselves without government intervention."

    How? Explain/ cite historical examples. Simply asserting without any evidence or reasoning that that an "open market society" (which is what, exactly?) would make everything better is no better than asserting that all the world's ills would be healed if people stopped eating meat or all converted to christianity.

    It's a complete non sequitur until you get off your ass and make an argument.

    Reply

  39. the Internet. People trade, engage in commerce, socially connect and yet there is ZERO Government interference.

    The internet IS a TRUE LIBERTARIAN society. And yes the free-market regulates the internet.
    The Internet is THE example of how a true UNREGULATED open market is successful.

    It allows for someone to start a business for essentially $10. There is no monopoly, because Government doesn't favor one over the other. Bad business fails, good prospers. You enter at your own risk.

    Reply

  40. it doesn't. it can't. it's impossible to prevent people from taking other people's liberty. that is up to the individuals themselves who have the right to defend themselves. the constitution has no power, it's a piece of paper which explains the natural rights of individuals and sets up a government. i told you there is no panacea solution because there's not. YOU are responsible for yourself. you own yourself and nobody else. i never said the word utopia, stop putting words in my mouth.

    Reply

  41. this country was set up based on these general assumptions. there is no utopic fantasy world. it had been tried before under the guise of socialism and failed miserably. these ideas and the abandonment of notions like the ones you peddle are what made this country the greatest in the world. we are now in decline and going the way of the world we once led. the reason things have gotten bad here is because we have thrown out our principles which are basic fundamental truths.

    Reply

  42. Do you really think the internet is free from government control? LOL

    If internet services didn't fall under freedom of information and freedom of expression laws, if ISP's had the right to deny internet access to people on a whim, do you really think the internet would be the bastion of free speech it is today?
    IF ISP's had the run of the internet (and they would if the government stopped being involved) they'd be the first to accept money from private companies in exchange for censorship.

    Reply

  43. So essentially, to funtion in libertarian society, you need to be able to protect yourself from any kind of threat to yourself and your rights. Wow.
    I'm pretty sure criminals would figure out that little old ladies are easy targets once law enforcement is disbanded.

    The idea that private citizens with no special training would do a better job at law enforcement than a government agency whose specific task it is to uphold the law is ludicrous. But cute.

    Reply

  44. you already have to be able to protect yourself from threats. when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. if you've ever been the victim of a crime (obviously you haven't) you'd know the cops weren't there to prevent it. that's what guns are for.

    Reply

  45. bullshit. ISP's do have the run of the internet and they want to make money. free speech doesn't come from holy government, dear. if it did you'd have to sign in to the online national database and be allowed a certain amount of time to surf as the government tracked and charged you for slander (like CHINA!).
    a few current examples of awesome socialist countries: Greece, Iran, Haiti, Uk, Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, Russia, Venezuela….check them out when you get a chance, report back to me.

    Reply

  46. Don't be ridiculous. If the government is tasked with a job, and it cannot do that job 100% of the time, your solution is to get of that function of government altogether, and have all private citizens be "responsible" for arrangiggn that function for themselves? What?!

    So, for example, if the FDA doesn't catch every food contamination before it affects the populace, we should get rid of the FDA? We should have private citizens check the safety of their own food?

    Reply

  47. So tell me please, what financial incentive is keeping ISPs from accepting big bucks from private industry in exchange for censorship of dissident voices? What is stopping them from doing that?

    Reply

  48. absolutely. the FDA allows corporations like monsanto to do whatever they want with GMO crops and also allow factory farms to feed their cows chicken "litter" (shit). You HAVE to eat it because of the FDA's Food Safety program. If you're not allowed to make bad decisions, you'll never make a good one. It's against the law for me to buy milk from my neighbor because the FDA calls it 'unsafe' in order to keep monopolies like monsanto at the top of the food chain. The FDA doesn't care about you

    Reply

  49. Also, basing your opinion of socialism on the countries that are doing most poorly is dishonest. Especially without looking at the CONTEXT of that country's current status. Venezuela for example has been seeing steady economic growth since electing a "socialist dictator". Russia is not socialist at all by any stretch of the imagination.

    I could do the same dishonest trick and use, say, Mississippi to represent Capitalism, lol.

    Reply

  50. I, and most of the rest of the world with me, don't want to have to boil my water before drinking it. I'd much prefer to be able to drink from the tap, knowing that someone is applying the necessary safety standards to that water.

    Are there occasionally corruption problems with regulation? Absolutely. But the solution is to address the problem, not get rid of the government and let corporations run amock.

    Reply

  51. in a word, money. public opinion is important to a company in a legitimate free market. they have to be very careful not to lose their customers. when the government intervenes and favors some organizations over others is when you have monopolies and problems. Public-private partnerships are the problem. “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. –Benito Mussolini hmmmmmmm……I wonder if he knew what he was talking about.

    Reply

  52. How would the public know, if the ISP has the power to block such information, and the people who would try to spread it?

    Reply

  53. no, you couldn't.Mississippi is not representative of laissez faire capitalism so your argument wouldn't apply, lol.
    And you're wrong about Venezuela.The socialist dictator is the true benefactor of the country's economic growth. How could I possibly know that?I know Venezuelans who fled, have studied South American History because I used to live there.You cannot make an argument that socialism works unless you look at all the examples, which you don't.You omit it's failures, THAT's dishonest.

    Reply

  54. I suppose that without any government whatsoever, it'd be hard to keep a company running in a lawless wasteland. Of course it'd be even harder for the individual to survive, but hey, I guess that's the price of "freedom".

    Reply

  55. Mississippi is a better representative of laissez faire capitalism than Russia is of socialism. You whinge and call me biased when I don't discuss every single example in your biased, selectively chosen and inaccurate "worst offenders list". Wow, you're a star.

    And the fact that you know a guy who fled venezuela doesn't mean your word trumps statistics and data. Go read the actual numbers instead of relying on your personal experiences to dictate reality.

    Reply

  56. How do you KNOW someone (some faceless person far away) is applying the necessary safety standards to your water? You don't want to boil water? Dig a well. You like eating shit? Buy FDA approved food. It's ultimately your choice which is the whole point. Drink whatever water you want. Eat what you want. Don't make me because you believe it is in my best interest. You couldn't possibly know what my best interest is and neither could i yours because I'm not a collectivist.

    Reply

  57. no it's not. Mississippi has a keynesian model of capitalism which a step away from socialism (actually it's the ultimate end). USSR. what did the S stand for? Soviet SOCIALIST Republic. That's what it was called. Of course it failed ultimately, now that country is a 'democracy' which is moving toward socialism, AGAIN.

    and i wonder, in a million years if a socialist dictator could ever fudge the numbers……hmmm….not likely, i guess.

    Reply

  58. You can't know with 100% certainty. You can trust the process to reduce such problems to statistically insignificant risks, and if those risks are still deemed to high, you can push for stricter guidelines. Same for food regulation. If you think FDA regulation is too lax (and it is) you can push for stricter guidelines on hormones and antibiotics in meat, etc.

    Reply

  59. The idea that the only way to ensure food safety is to produce it yourself is at once naive (people died of food poisoning throughout history, usually in MUCh higher numbers than nowadays), and shortsighted, in that even if it were true that every person could sustain hmself off food he/she produced himself, it would be DISASTROUS to US productivity. Progress is made because scientists and engineers don't have to waste their time milking cows and growing beets.

    Reply

  60. you're not getting it. people would still do what people do: organize, grow, buy, sell, learn, drink, smoke, all that shit. it's not that much different, just that much better because of accountability. the bankers and companies that we've bailed out haven't been held accountable how can you justify that? the reason is because the government backs them ( (D) Obama & (R) Bush). there's no justice without individual responsibility or real equality.

    Reply

  61. bullshit. especially with the technology we have nowadays, not everyone has to be a farmer. how dense are you? we were the richest country on earth for over a century with inventions like the lightbulb, telephone, electricity (i could go on) even in the midst of a civil war. god dammit, this is worse than arguing with an 11 year old who changes directions and puts words in people's mouths constantly. I'm done arguing with you. leave me the hell alone.

    Reply

  62. And the reason not everyone is a farmer is because we've specialised labour. And when specialisation happens, an automatic result is that people have to rely on each other. The baker gets his meat from the butcher, the butcher gets his bread from the baker, etc. Now on a tiny scale, this can happen without regulation, because people can hold each other personally responsible…..

    Reply

  63. But as society grows and the scale of such enterprises increases, it is unfeasible to hold people accountable after the fact, when doing so puts hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives at risk.

    With no regulation of, say, food safety, the number of deaths and health risks would go up, and in all likelyhood, there would be very little repercussin because without a federal agancy devoted to monitoring and diminishing such risks, who would know about it?

    Reply

  64. Oh well you got me, clearly the venezuelan commies are in cahoots with the FBI to falsify their economic stats to promote socialism.

    Oh and by the way, the USSR was socialist but it was also, more specifically, COMMUNIST.
    A person from France is de facto a European, but using him to represent ALL Europeans is dishonest.

    Reply

  65. No. the reason why not everyone is a farmer is because not everyone WANTS to be a farmer. It's that simple, stop overcomplicating the issue. And what you just described there is free market capitalism on a voluntary basis. I love it!

    Reply

  66. Incorrect. The glorious state allows monopolies to form and prosper throughout the whole country. This would not occur in a free market society, such as the one you demonstrated above. Regulation is a TRAP because you have to continue regulating until someone has a political advantage over someone else. That is the problem. You make a law about so and so and then you have to make another law because such and such happened after you passed that law.

    Reply

  67. Incorrect. USSR was a socialist republic. Look it up. It was NOT communist (easy to confuse the two, however. they're similar). A person from Greece lives in a socialist nightmare, comparing him to someone who lives in a beautiful crime free socialist utopia (of which there are apparently three great examples of success!) is dishonest. You strike me as someone who has been schooled, as opposed to educated. May I ask where you went to University?

    Reply

  68. "If there is no teacher, do you think all the children will play nice because of the free market?" THAT is a non-sequitur argument – does not follow.

    Reply

  69. Yet it seems to be your argument when applied to economic systems: "Get rid of the rules, get rid of authority and then somehow, people will treat each other fairly and everyone will be happy."

    Reply

  70. "In political science, the term "communism" is sometimes used to refer to communist states, a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof."
    Following this definition, the USSR was communist, as was China. Please cite any credible source that says the USSR was NOT communist. Why do you think they were called commies?

    Reply

  71. Greece's problems arise not from socialism in and of itself, they arise from very generous public spending, coupled with extremely low taxes, with an incredibly high rate of tax evasion, especially among the rich. Add in a healthy dose of corruption and Goldmann&Sachs' help in hiding Greece's debt from the rest of the world, and you have a perfect ticking time bomb, set to blow when the 2008 US recession hit.
    It's easy to blame it all on public spending. It's also inaccurate and shortsighted.

    Reply

  72. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand… Need I continue?

    You may ask where I went to university, I'd answer that it's not relevant, but I went to the Free university of Amsterdam. Not that this is even remotely relevant, other than for the purpose of red herrings and ad hominems.

    Reply

  73. that's pretty much it. at least everyone would have the chance to make themselves happy. just because someone thinks they should decide for others doesn't make it right. after that, it's the non-aggression principle.

    Reply

  74. It was just a question. Not a red herring. I went to a state university as well. I had to unlearn everything. Used to be a progressive, myself. Later Radicali. Peace.

    Reply

  75. The jobs bill she's referring to is the one that didn't pass in 2011 or so. The Obama stimulus didn't create many jobs. The biggest portion of it was tax breaks. It turns out, cutting taxes in an economy that already has a very low tax burden, doesn't do much for job growth.

    Reply

  76. Hey guys guess what KEYSEYAIN economics doesn't work. IE—- America 1913 through today. Call me crazy but I would rather have slow sustainable growth instead of insane hyper growth followed by a crash due to the unsustainability of said hyper growth.

    Reply

  77. Also Sam you should do a show on how the Federal Reserve system works. O wait that would deconstruct your basis that this shit matters. This one huge con game people. You are being duped.

    Reply

  78. You can always tell when tea party sheeple, YouTubers & rebulitards are worried – they start posting inane insults about people like "socialist whore".  

    Reply

  79. So one random bum at some random meeting represents the entire Tea Party? You spent SIX minutes talking about this random guy who represents no one but himself?

    Perhaps I should start recording idiots who support Elizabeth Warren who show up at Tea Party events?

    Elizabeth Warren is indeed a socialist. Whore is an uncalled for insult.

    Reply

  80. The tea party is made up of idiots who don't understand the constitution or even the history of the U.S. They're just conspiracy nuts left over from 9/11.

    Reply

  81. The lady is a treasure. The lower paid workers in the USA should wake up and kiss her arse cuz she is 1 of a very few, a tiny minority of politicians that truly 'do' and strive every,single day of their lives, fighting in an attempt to improve the quality of life for them. Its makes me wanna throw up when I see the crap that this man,this stupid individual, get up and throw out his verbal diarrhoea but then proceeds to ;leg-it' out of the building before giving her the chance to reply to his BS. I wish this lady was a politician here in the Uk cuz… we'd be far better off with her.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *