US Trending News

Trump Slams Paul Ryan On Fox News



Donald Trump had some harsh words for Congressman Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan on Fox News. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

On Facebook:

Subscribe:

TYT Mobile:

On Twitter:

FREE Movies(!):

Read Ana’s blog and subscribe at:

Read Cenk’s Blog:

Mariah
Blogger, Performer, Truck Driver, Serial Careerist, Cigarette Butt Collector. Let me bitch at you every day until you sort your shit.

38 Comments

  1. @TheNavigateur Well, here is where you are correct: if there is ONE thing that is guaranteed in the so called 'justice system' you got going now, it's funding.

    They surely are guaranteed that, since they can print all the 'funding' they want for it.

    What part of competition don't you get? That's the only thing that makes the life propagate on this planet (and probably beyond) and that's the only thing proven to work for billions of years. Competing systems include funding competition.

  2. @TheNavigateur True free market has enough competition to push prices down for a century at a time, 19 century USA showed it conclusively, so your argument is based on some magical thinking, not reality

    Companies don't like competition, but without government helping them to avoid it, they can't avoid it. Anybody can start a competing business, and with new technologies, often competition becomes more effective than the established business, because it's more agile

    You are in a perpetual sleep

  3. @romanmir01 You're failing to realise that slavery was legal for most of the 19th century, so sure.. slavery pushes prices down.

    But you've failed to move beyond this point.. the fact that there is a personal profit motive in enslaving others. A justice system that acts against slavery must have guaranteed funding by a democratic state otherwise it will degenerate essentially into private armies that exist only to help their donors.

    Your idea of dismantling the state altogether sucks.

  4. @TheNavigateur Nice try. Slavery cannot push prices down, innovation pushes prices down, because innovation and automation allows for better results, cheaper than slave labor, faster, more precise, better quality.

    That's why the 19 century worker became so productive – he was given the capital – machines.

    You don't like my idea of dismantling states – I don't care. This will happen naturally, as states will have less and less role, as people stop giving their federal gov't the power.

  5. @romanmir01 Your logic is as follows: innovation pushes prices down, therefore slavery can't push prices down. You know very well that both do, and can be used simultaneously, including to build machines. You can even use violence to force labor of a skilled nature (to build machines).

    But FORGET slavery to SELL things. YOUR idea (unlike even the 19th century) would usher in a strong profit-motive to rob, steal and enslave for own gain. There'd be little incentive to actually "sell" anything.

  6. @TheNavigateur No, my logic is: innovation pushes prices down below the costs associated with slave ownership.

    Also it is not up to any government to decide when slavery stops – this is decided by opinion of the majority, and then government follows the popular opinion.

    "YOUR idea (unlike even the 19th century) would usher in a strong profit-motive to rob, steal and enslave for own gain." – nonsense.

  7. @TheNavigateur Obviously stealing and robbing is profitable, but I do not see your point at all. What does it have to do with free market?

    Free market in fact requires a working justice system, which is needed for criminal and contract law. Government is only one way of delivering justice system capable of that, and the way things look, it's less and less attractive as a method of delivery of justice with every passing day. How do you not see this?

  8. @TheNavigateur The poor person would not call '911', because there would be no 911. There would be a multitude of private services one could access, and a poor person who is not an idiot, would buy insurance, which would cater to his needs. So poor person would buy cheap insurance (as insurance without government intervention is) and be covered in case of an emergency from a service provider.

  9. @TheNavigateur Your premise is that there is this rich person, who forcibly took possessions and even abused the poor person. Your question is: how does free market address this.

    The answer is: free market does not safe guard you against theft or rape, neither does any other system. Free market provides a working economy, which elevates everybody's standard of living. Standard of living includes all sorts of services at accessible prices, this includes security force, insurance and justice.

  10. @TheNavigateur Justice system is also subject to the market forces – with competing courts and competing court decision enforcement businesses.

    A 'poor' (a RELATIVE TERM) person would be able to buy a product, that would help him/her in the contrived situation like the one you are describing.

    Most people are not the poorest or the richest, the market would provide the statistical median of the population with anything they need, that's where the majority of purchasing power is located.

  11. @TheNavigateur Under the current system the people are losing their income, their work, to the lords in government and the lords in government monopolies, while also losing their savings to the lords in Federal reserve and lords in Treasury and lords in gov't monopolies.

    The theft that you are describing is systematic under the current regime, and it's total in scale.

    That you don't see it….. is not surprising.

  12. @TheNavigateur Any day of the year, any year of my life I would take free market over government, so that must answer your question.

    I prefer to deal with separate people and businesses rather than with a monopoly on everything, including so called 'justice'.

  13. @romanmir01 The problem is that you don't know what a true free market looks like. A true free market (that your ideas would incentivize by profit motive) has extortion (robbery), slavery, violence and burglary. This is not actually the free market you like, which is actually sustained by laws derived from democratic processes.

    You're actually liking/advocating something you'd hate, and are hating something that is responsible for something you like.

  14. @TheNavigateur How do you figure it would be worse? The robbery and extortion that businesses and people are facing every day with the current government structure are worse today, than they were in USA back in 19 century. Sure, there were robbers. So what? There are robbers today. But today, USA also has the largest prison population in the world, while it's conducting the largest military operations in the world all over the world.

    You don't see the forest for the trees

  15. @TheNavigateur I much rather deal with private 'mafias' (and I have to deal with them anyway,) than with government mafias, who unfortunately I also have to deal with, because with gov't it's not just physical power, it's the so called justice system that's against you and they feel righteous about stealing from you.

  16. @TheNavigateur I deal with those issues, but I am not located in USA. I deal with some in Asia and some in Russia, and it's better to deal in Asia, as those are private, than with those in Russia – they are government based.

  17. @romanmir01 You're entirely ignorant of the sheer scale and power of the tyranny that would prevail in the abscence of a democratic state. Even in the countries you've mentioned with "private mafias", they are severely curtailed by not being able to act brazenly, as the democratic state is MORE powerful than them. Those "issues" that you "deal with" are trivial peanuts compared to what you'd have to "deal with" if your ideas came true, in which cas you'd not be able to deal with it at all.

  18. @TheNavigateur No no, people who have to deal with real mafia today are those, trying to do business in Russia. The gov't mafia will wipe the floors with you if you and they have the court system on their side. And they do call themselves 'democratic'.

    Democracy is mobocracy, that's why US wasn't created one, it was created a Republic, so that there is no democracy, which leads to the majority rule, which is always detrimental to the economy.

  19. @TheNavigateur That's not a democracy. There is a reason Franklin said: "I give you a Republic, if you can keep it."

    A Republic, where right to vote is limited by various factors on purpose, so that those, who do not contribute much don't have much of a say. The gov't of today uses socialist tactics to break out of this predicament for themselves, they want total control, to get that they need you to be fully dependent.

  20. @TheNavigateur Wrong. In a representative democracy, 51 percent of people could vote to kill the other 49 percent of people simply because they felt like it.

    Due to us having a constitution and laws, its not labeled as a democracy anymore

  21. @TheNavigateur Clearly you dont understand what a Constitutional republic is.

    If this was a total democracy, then they wouldnt have to follow the Constitution, since they do however, it then becomes a constitutional republic. Which people can elect representatives, however they must obide by the constitution. If nobody did, then it would indeed be a democracy

  22. @TheNavigateur Once again you fail.

    Nothing in Article 1 Section 7 says this country is a democracy and not a constitutional republic.

    Why cant you understand that it is NOT a democracy if the elected officials have to obey by the constitution?

    In a pure democracy, 51% could vote to kill the other 49%, but since we have a constitution, they cannot. Since they cannot do this, its not a democracy.

    Even if they put an amendment to kill the other 49%, they couldnt do it.

  23. @superlucci Yes they could. According to Article 1 Section 7, if they want something done, in the words of Section 7, "it shall become a law". According to Article 5, they can amend the constitution, so yes they can. Therefore the US is a democracy. The constitution makes it so. Without it, the US could indeed become a non-democratic republic, like Assad's Syria, Gaddafi's Libya, etc. The whole point is to allow government to be guided by reason, not dogma. Conservatism=dogma=anti-constitution.

  24. @TheNavigateur "Yes they could. According to Article 1 Section 7, if they want something done, in the words of Section 7, "it shall become a law"."

    No where in that sentence you gave indicates this is automatically a democracy.

    " According to Article 5, they can amend the constitution, so yes they can."

    Once again, they cannot amend the Constitution in order to take away our rights,

    "Therefore the US is a democracy. "

    Wrong! They have a constitution to follow.

    Ah forget it, toot ired

  25. @TheNavigateur Look up "Milton Friedman Democracy" just a 1 minute clip. Then go ahead and check the related vids for more information

  26. @superlucci I'm sorry, I thought I asked you to name me one democracy that isn't based on a constitution. Never mind, you can't. The fact of the matter is that it takes 2/3 of congress to amend the constitution, and a simple majority in congress to pass laws.

    You might be AGAINST democracy, but that doesn't change the fact that the constitution makes the US a democracy.

    Prove me wrong. Quote the constitution which you claim "prevents" the US being a democracy. Otherwise you utterly fail.

  27. Once again, Romney is the Mafia-supported candidate, and Trump is an effortless liar, who doesn't recognize truth. He's angry, not right.

  28. Gretchen is a DUMB CUNT!!! Fox and Friends what a fucking joke, the name of the show ought to be called FOX AND NEO-CON SYCOPHANTS!!!

Leave a Response