Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ben Shapiro Gets National Radio Show" video.

  1. kestrel archer, he is not wrong
    6
  2. R.$O$A, I do fact check and go beyond that, I apply reasoning to the issue and dig deep on them. There are things that Crowder and Shapiro talk about that I can criticize. I have criticized Kyle on a lot of things. I find it scary that people who rip on Shapiro and Crowder cannot criticize Kyle.
    5
  3. Rocket Scientist, I did say that I have criticized Crowder as well. I made a comment on one of his "change my mind" videos he did where I felt he was giving deceptive stats towards someone. I disagreed with is video on the computer guy as I felt he was doing unnecessary trolling. I don't defend Crowder 100%. However, you have to be fair here as well. I watch Crowder and Kyle a lot, I view Kyle as constantly being wrong. I have pointed out many examples on multiple videos. Kyle flat out lies or is completely wrong on many issues. Why don't you criticize him? Also, Crowder at least has guests on his show and goes out and debates people. Kyle doesn't. You don't find that to be an issue? The fact that you completely dismiss Crowder but haven't Kyle is a problem. Kyle is far worse than Crowder. You are showing double standards here. I am not defending Crowder as this point, I am a moderate and I have criticized him. I am simply showing your double standards now where you have to reconsider.
    5
  4. Kyle is jealous. It comes down to that Shapiro actually goes out and has discussions with people. Kyle lives in his bubble and calls successful people like Shapiro stupid.
    5
  5. Rocket Scientist, you are a prime example of what the OP is talking about. What is wrong with what Crowder says on those issues? You say they are "lies", how?
    3
  6. I love how people rip on Shapiro but can never point out where he is wrong.
    3
  7. Brian, 1. Many professor who are not associated with PragerU at all. Also, saying "PragerU" is pulling a logical fallacy. There are many economists who oppose raising the min. wage where even those that support it can admit the flaws behind it saying that there is an argument against it, like Paul Krugman for example. 2. I have never seen the Sam Harris video. Razorfist is a video game reviewer that occasionally discusses politics, that is not a strong opponent. I did watch that debate and saw the same deceptive talking points made by Kyle. I would have called him out on it with evidence, many that are peer reviewed. For example, on healthcare, he says that other nations do cover everyone when Razorfist said, correctly, that they don't. Kyle claimed they did with zero support and his fan base agreed without question. That is a major problem. You question Crowder in what he says but not Kyle? Again, double standard. Joe Rogan is a podcast where he agrees with everyone on his show. Fox News was very recent, so maybe he is starting to get out of his bubble. Still won't respect him until he debates Crowder or Shapiro and stops giving lame excuses in why he won't. 3. Kyle is honest? Really? Kyle operates for the best interest of the people? Really? Again, why do you criticize Crowder but not Kyle? If Kyle was honest and genuine he would be presenting all sides of the arguments. He would not be saying there is not argument against raising the min. wage when basic economics says there is. He would not be saying that in other nations people die due to lack of healthcare when, in fact, they do. He is lying about healthcare systems. "You act as if Kyle is intentionally dishonest when we can all see he is not." He is because very basic internet searches one can find who deceptive he is. Take, for example, the 45,000 deaths he keeps bringing up. A very basic search brings up how a Harvard professor said obtaining accurate numbers is hard to begin with. Or the polls where he fails to mention the methods. Or when he talked about how blacks receive a 20% longer sentence than whites for the same crime when the same study he points to says that correlation does not equal causation and that other factors are at play. He does not give the full story. You may argue Crowder doesn't, but if you are going to say that you have to have the same standards for Kyle. "I disagree with Kyle on a number of topics however I can see he is not intentionally misleading people like you allude to." Bu the is. If not than he is very dumb. He does not even read the studies he cites if that is the case. "Show me who benefits from Kyles dishonesty" Kyle as he is attracting idiots.
    2
  8. TheGamingVillas, he graduated from Harvard law, skipped two grades, spoke in front of congress, has many books, etc. He is very intelligent. Anyone who calls him stupid is simply projecting.
    2
  9. Evil Doll, Shapiro is intelligent though. Those that say he isn't are simply projecting.
    2
  10. How? You have to give examples. Without it what you say is irrelevant.
    2
  11. The reason why right wingers are on radio is because a lot of the major work force lean right and listen to radio while working. People like small business owners for example. I know many who listens to talk radio while working. That is the target market. It has nothing to do with silencing people but has to do with going after a target market.
    2
  12. Obi-Wan Kenobi, college campuses have become ultra leftist safe havens. They hardly invite people with a right wing viewpoint on campus but invite many leftists.
    2
  13. I am seeing a lot of comments about how Shapiro is wrong but they never give examples.
    1
  14. Rocket Scientist, I watched the entire video. He said Hitler took Germany from the ashes and raised them up. How did he rise Germany up? He did so with a genocide. That is not being a "great man". Think what you want but you have to consider that 1. Crowder told his viewers to watch the whole video 2. What Farrakhan said was not too bright. How Hitler raised Germany from the ashes, as he puts it, was through death. Similar to how people used slavery to raise a country. Is that great?
    1
  15. "Check out potholer54 who debunks all of crowders videos on climate change in which he uses the same tactic" I checked that video and actually personally contacted potholer54 on it. In this instant both were in the wrong. For example, on the ice cap issue, they both have valid points. Yes, overall the ice caps are melting, but the southern ones aren't, they are growing. Why? Potholer54 talked about looking at the "whole picture" when the "whole picture" is looking at the overall net gain/loss and each individually. I called out potholer54 on that one as well and he proceeded to play mental gymnastics on me when he realized that I was much more intelligent then him and did not take his bait to call him a 'dumb schmuck". As for Hitler, I hate the Hitler comparisons as a whole. Why? Because Hitler was in a league of his own. But both sides do it. I agree with criticizing Crowder on it, but you have to be fair and do it for all.
    1
  16. "Can something only be great if it is moral? " Moral can be subjective, but killing millions of people is not great. Having success by killing millions is not greatness. He raised Germany by leading a genocide, not through productivity and innovation. You can change the standards a bit and say he was a "great war leader" which is fine, I will agree he was great there. But the point of him being called "great" by Farrakhan was because he raised Germany from the ashes. Did he do it through productivity, innovation and bring a society together? No. He did it through hate and a genocide. That is not greatness at that point. "If slavery makes something not great then America is not great since it’s wealth was built on the backs of slavery" On can argue that. However, one can also argue that slavery has been gone for over 150 years and our wealth was built during the industrial revolution and our free market principles. It was not built on hate and division. That after a Civil War we were able to still grow without slavery. "Can a man no be great in his power and influence and ALSO immoral? " At that point you have to say what was he great at? As I said, he brought Germany up through genocide and divide. That is not being a great leader of a country. "Go ahead and show us how dishonest you are being just to defend lyin Steve" Not being dishonest, show pointing out a fact.
    1
  17. "there is no in between.. either he took the clip out of context or he didn’t... Did he provide the full context???? NOO" He told others to watch it and I did. Did he present it out of context? No. Why? Because I repeat, saying Hitler was a "great man" will immediately shut people off. Listening it farther you see his reasoning why. The more I think about it Farrakhan is literally saying it is OK to kill millions and have a genocide as long as it brings a country out of poverty. Because that is how Hitler did it. Go ahead and show us how dishonest you can be there denying that part. Please stop trying to do mental gymnastics with me, it won't go well for you.
    1
  18. "how was potholer wrong? This ought to be good....." I explained that. As a scientist (I am one myself) I said that the "whole picture" is looking at both the net gain/loss of the polar ice caps along with them individually. I presented that to potholer54 and he proceeded to try to bait me into calling him a "dumb schmuck" as he felt I was that type of person.
    1
  19. "You just admitted crowder took the fact that some ice caps were getting larger and left out the fact that others were shrinking... meaning he took that fact out of context to imply there is no global warming... " I am honest and I do admit Crowder said that. As I said, I have criticized Crowder a lot. I don't support him 100%. I just feel he is far worse than Kyle. Also, Crowder never said there wasn't any global warming or climate change. He has said multiple times there is climate change. "So when potholer correctly points this out, you go “well they are both correct” That’s retarded as fuck... crowder tells half the story and comes to THE WRONG CONCLUSION." Potholer54 tells half the story as well. We are the southern ice caps growing? Explain that. I see that as there is a lot more happening than just "global warming".
    1
  20. Rocket Scientist, let me ask you an honest question. Why do you continue to watch Kyle then? I have admitted many times now that Crowder is wrong at times and I have admitted I have criticized him. But I have also said that Kyle is far worse than Crowder. Why do you continue to watch Kyle?
    1
  21. Rocket Scientist, you see, I am fair here. I am a moderate. I still watch Kyle even though he is wrong well over 70% of the time (being on the low end). I do so as I like to see both sides of the issue which is why I also watch Crowder. I just don't stop watching someone when they make a few incorrect claims.
    1
  22. Rocket Scientist, as usual when things get challenging for you you run away.
    1
  23. George, if Kyle is not wrong he is very deceptive. Here are a few of many examples I can give. 1. He constantly points to opinion polls as if they are facts to push ideas. There are several flaws with that. To start, polls are vague with vague questions. He recently looked at a poll on medicare for all and said 59% supported it. However, nowhere in that polling did they mention taxes. If you included that how would the poll go? Also, in the methods they asked for the youngest adult which skews the results as they are going after the youngest participants. To add, 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. Colorado is a left leaning state that supported Bernie. If polls say one thing why do people vote another way? Also, going off of polls is not how we create policy. Kyle is saying if you do not support medicare for all than you are against what the people want and that is wrong. Well, if the majority supported banning abortion, or creating religious like laws would Kyle support that? If the polls say people supported them would Kyle say that is the will of the people and it must be done? 2. He has said there isn't any argument against raising the min. wage when in fact there are numerous experts who oppose the idea. 3. He said there isn't any argument against medicare for all when there are many experts who oppose the idea. 4. On healthcare he keeps bringing up the 45,000 deaths a year. Now never mind the many flaws in how inaccurate that number can be, what Kyle would do is follow up and say that number is zero in other nations. That is not true as in other nations people die due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. For example, people have died on waiting lists in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. 5. On the gun issue he has said that other countries have stricter gun laws and lower murder rates. In reality they have lower murder rates in general. For example, the US has a murder rate that is 5 times higher than the UK. If you remove all gun murders from the US the US still has a murder rate that is 2 times higher than the UK. Kyle also points to Australia when before their buyback program gun murders were dropping to begin with. 6. Kyle has said that our defense budget increase can pay for "free college" when he is ignoring increase in demand without increasing supply. This just scratches the surface. I can come up with more. At the very least he is highly deceptive if he is not flat out wrong. You can argue Crowder is the same way, but what Crowder does that Kyle doesn't is that Crowder goes out and debates people. He has people on his show. Kyle doesn't. Kyle literally works in a bubble. He makes a BS excuse in why he won't debate Crowder and Shapiro. My major issue, though, is how many will rip on Crowder and say they refuse to take him seriously when Kyle, at the very least practices the same deceptive technique as Crowder. Kyle supporters have double standards at that point.
    1
  24. Brian, 1. Paul Krugman is an economist who earned his PhD in economics from MIT. He is a Nobel Prize winner. Other economists are Kristen Eastlick, Bradley Schiller, Thomas Sowell, JJ Sabia, Richard Burkhauser.....I can go on but there are plenty. In fact, a survey done by the AEA showed that 73% of economists believed that raising the min. wage will lead to employment losses. This is very simple information to find. But the fact you did not know who Paul Krugman was makes you unfit for this discussion. You can easily find that he is an economist. 2. Kyle doesn't debate, period. Razorfist is not a political commenter like Crowder. Kyle runs from opposition that can actually challenge him. Crowder and Shapiro have discussed healthcare and economic issues a lot. Why not debate them? Because Kyle is scared. 3. " The simplest way to test this out is who benefits from kyle saying minimum wage should be increased? The people. Who benefits from the government providing health care? The people. " Union can benefit greatly from min. wage increases which is why you have crony unionism. The min. wage has been shown to kill many unskilled jobs hurting people it is designed to help. The government can benefit greatly with government ran healthcare as now it has another bargaining chip to become even more corrupt. " Name a single issue Kyle argues that would benefit a corporation. " The min. wage as larger companies can afford it. Walmart argued for an increase in the min. wage at one point. Healthcare as the government will pick favorites in what healthcare provider to use. " All of the arguments he espouses that benefit the government are driven by appealing to the best interests of the people. " What is the best interest of the people? Obama was at one point, was he the best interest? Justice Democrats are losing, but according to Kyle people support their ideas. Then why do they lose? Also, if government is so corrupt, why does Kyle want it to have more power? Shapiro and Crowder push for more freedom and less government which lowers government corruption. They want people to be free from government and thus government corruption. Kyle wants the opposite. " Kyle does his show to clear the misconceptions commonly put fourth via mainstream outlets. He is debunking the myths people commonly are brainwashed with. In doing so, yes he makes flaws. LOL This does not make Kyle dumb if he over looks certain subjects." There is a difference between overlooking and flat out not reading something. Studies he cites himself I have used against him. That is a problem.
    1
  25. ""You are avoiding the substance of the discussion which is THOUSANDS of people DIE annually because they cannot get access to basic healthcare which in most countries aside to places like afghanistan and somalia those people WOULD NOT DIE. "" I have to comment on this separately as it shows how bad Kyle is. To start, you saying "which in most countries aside to places like afghanistan and somalia those people WOULD NOT DIE. " That is 100% not true. Here are titles of papers to read "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ That is from Canada alone. Google those titles and the papers will come up. The fact is that in other nations people do die. Kyle bringing up that 45,000 number is him being highly deceptive and attracting idiots who refuse to question his talking points. 1. That 45,000 number is not accurate as it is hard to obtain accurate numbers there according to Katherine Baicker, a Harvard professor. Those individuals are poor to begin with and there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. All of those issues are self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. 2. That 45,000 is 0.01% of the population, minute overall considering how no nation covers everyone as I just showed you 3. Kyle and you saying that number is zero in other nations is 100% false 4. That 45,000 number is not compared to other nations as no study as been done in comparison. So that number is very empty without proper comparison. That is not to say that number does not possess value. It is to say that it is empty and should be taken with very high skepticism. "You are acting like a snowflake and have not addressed that many points that would make someone not support Kyle." I just did. I just showed you how that 45,000 number Kyle presents is highly misleading. Either he is too dumb to look deeper into it, or he is being misleading to gain views from idiots who refuse to look deeper into it. Take your pick. But you won't, you did not know who Paul Krugman was.
    1
  26. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/ Read the section of the "case against". The information is there, Kyle is not giving it to you. He is a con artist or just dumb.
    1
  27. Brian, 1. Paul Krugman is an economist. He has arguments against the min. wage even in his own textbook. Admit it, you have no clue who he was until I brought him up. 2. Yeah, it took forever. 3. Define "reasonable wage". That is very vague. 4. Walmart has pushed for a min. wage increase. knowing it would hurt smaller competitors. "The fact is the government intervention in having a minimum wage is what keeps American corporations from paying people pennies on the hour." People will not work for such low wages. Also, Walmart pays above the min. wage. " The effect of increasing the minimum wage on walmart would hypothetically cost walmart $1,400, 000 dollars extra each hour. There is absolutely no logical reason for Walmart to try and drive the competition by willfully incurring this cost when their competition is minimal." "That's a cost they would be stuck paying even after driving competition out of business which makes no sense at all to any investor." When you have a monopoly it doesn't matter. 5. The Tea Party won first round Kyle supports many of their policies. "Having a reasonable standard of living and health care are in the best interests of the people. That's just common sense." It isn't "common sense" because there is an argument to begin with. Also, define "reasonable". That's vague. "That statement is half true because on one hand they want a larger government (bigger police, bigger military etc) and on the other hand they want less taxation and such. The fact of the matter is they want more and less at the same time. Saying they only want less government is an inaccurate statement." Defense is constitutional and makes up only 16% of the federal budget. Defense spending has been dropping. Also, I see nothing saying they want to expand it. Police are funded and ran locally, irrelevant here. "Again another misleading statement as it's only partially true. The government is already corrupt. The military is already corrupt. Policing is already corrupt. The courts are already corrupt. They want these aspects of government to continue or be increased. They do not advocate for less government in regard to subjects that are grossly corrupt today. " Police are ran locally, how are they corrupt? How is the court corrupt? How is the military corrupt? "With this being said, I don't believe this makes Kyle dumb or dishonest. Just misguided and wrong at times. I don't think he's 100% all of the time. " Why don't you give Crowder the same pass? "The main thing Kyle has going for him is his genuine approach to always going with what he believes to be the truth regardless." If he were genuine he will debate people like Crowder and he would dig deep into an issue that can easily be found.
    1
  28. Brian, "The bigger crime is the fact that health care is profitable and cures to cancer are NOT allowed to exist. The predatory health care industry suppresses such remedies and offers alternative solutions they patent and profit off." The US leads the world in R&D. Our issues with healthcare is that it is a for profit system but not a free market system. Healthcare has many government restrictions driving up costs. "Just so you're aware, it's not a good thing that American's die because they can't get access to health care." I agree, but what I am saying is that happens in other nations as well. "No, you didn't. You nit picked a very miniscule topic even though it remains truthful. LOL Perhaps if thousands of people DID NOT die annually because they couldn't access health care you would have a case. However this is not the case at all. Thousands of people do die annually and Kyle is correct in bringing that point up. He may be incorrect on the exact annual figure. " As I said, a Harvard professor talked about the flaws of those numbers. It is arguable that 45,000 is actually lower. Also, as I said, that happens in other nations. So here are the issues 1. It is arguable that number is not accurate to begin with 2. It is no compared to other nations, so that number is meaningless.Yes, 45,000 dying is bad, but what is the rate in other nations? It is not zero. So what is it? Where is a similar study? One does not exist making this number irrelevant. So yes, I do have a strong case here.
    1
  29. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/ Read that article.
    1
  30. "141 deaths... 141 dude. One hundred and forty one." Yes, with a smaller population and that is only one form of death. You are looking at 45,000 dude, in a nation of 320+ million dude, for all types of deaths, dude. Also, as I said and as I just linked, one can argue that 45,000 is an exaggeration. "I understand that republicans and people like yourself don't care that thousands of their fellow citizens die annually" Oh shut the fuck up. Really. Just because we have different ideas does not mean I want people to die or don't care about people dying. I do. My ideas are different, but I can defend them. I will never say that Kyle does not care about anyone nor that he wants people to die. You are coming off that your ideas are morally superior and if I disagree in any way that I am a bad person. Seriously, shut the fuck up. This is why republicans won, people are sick of that attitude. I am trying to help you here.
    1
  31. "I have heard of Paul many times in the past I went to school for business and read up on him in economics. I don't follow the guy or keep up to speed on what he's saying because I don't give a fuck about him. That's the truth. But to say I had no idea who he was is simply not true. Anyone reads up on him who uses wikipedia." You have to be 100% honest and admit that he is an expert in economics that argues against the min. wage. At that point Kyle is 100% wrong saying there is no argument there. You are starting to show leftist tendencies. You are cussing saying you don't care about opposing arguments even if they are from experts, and you said I support the deaths of Americans saying you are morally superior. " A reasonable wage is a wage that is reasonable. " Thanks for a clear definition, I was originally confused. So with that I feel a "reasonable wage" is the market rate. "That's no ambiguous at all. I am sorry to see you're having difficulty with that but if you insist. It's simply a wage that allows people to have a decent standard of living." Define "decent standard of living" that is subjective. I am having difficulty because you do not understand the topic well enough to go into details. This is what happens when you blindly follow Kyle. " but you should address the cause of the problem and not complain about some of the proposed solutions. " They go hand and hand. "Until the inherent problem is addressed than there will always be a problem with not having wages that allow for a reasonable standard of living." Define "reasonable standard of living". "Walmart may push for that but it's illogical and they never did it." https://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-we-are-not-opposed-to-increase-in-minimum-wage-1400163728 http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/ "You think saying that expecting the people in America to have a decent standard of living and health care is not common sense." I want them to have great healthcare and wages. You only want "decent". You saying it is "common sense" means there is no argument in approaching it, there is. "You've lost absolutely all credibility with all your nit picking." No I haven't, you have not shown that you understand the topic well enough so you have to go to appeal to emotion statements of "decent' and "reasonable". Nitpicking these complex issues is how you learn.
    1
  32. Brian, people die in other nations due to shortcomings in healthcare as well. No system is ideal. "The amount that die in America for lack of care is FAR MORE than that in countries with socialized care." Based on what? What studies? "This is not even up to debate. " It is, we see these debates done by experts.
    1
  33. "This does not take away from the simple fact that the industry deprives true advancements for health. The profit incentive is what make's the health care industry want people to be sick and not receive certain treatments - especially natural remedies. They want those alternatives suppressed and patented and institutionalized solutions mainstreamed. " I agree that is a problem, but that is because we lack a free market system. Will government solve this problem? "Harvard professor brought up the flaws. Okay, I read that it was a harvard medical school that proposed those statistics to begin with. I could care less because the amount of people who die in America who cannot access health care is more than most nations would be willing to accept. It's immoral and easily avoidable." Again, what studies do you compare that to? What studies shows how many die in other countries? Here is a hint, none exist, thus you have nothing to compare this 45,000 to. " Is that not a problem that THOUSANDS of people die? Of course it is." I agree 100%. But deaths happen in other countries as well.
    1
  34. "1. You are looking at 141 deaths over 5 years in Canada. 2. You are looking at something like 120,000 over 5 years in America." 141 deaths from one issues. 120,000 deaths from all types of illnesses. You are comparison apples and trucks here. That means your comparisons are not sound due to many variables. "Like im not sure how that is even an argument dude." You talk about the 45,000 deaths a year but have zero studies from other nations to give a proper comparisons. That is the argument.
    1
  35. Brian, read this book on healthcare https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  36. "Sick of that attitude. Well there is a reason it is reoccuring. You're pushing for ideas that kill people where as the others are pushing for ideas that save people... It's the very essence of your position." How do my ideas push to kill people? Please explain. I am digging deep on these issues. You say you want "decent healthcare" but never define what decent is. "Just like you hear conservatives say taxes are theft. " I never say that. "Well denying people access to health care is murder" Forcing people to give up their services and resources is slavery. We lack doctors, nurses, equipment, etc. How do you provide healthcare to all with lack of supplies? " I am not making that up I am highlighting the idea you support for being what it is - evil. " You have no argument so you resorts to insults. "In fact - it's your idol ben shapiro that says - providing health care to people is government threat of force against my wife. Well if he is going to use that very logic than - denying people health care is actual murder and not an imaginary threat of force." Again, how do you provide healthcare to all people with limited resources?
    1
  37. "Not the government but your willingness to prevent the government from helping these people live." How does the government help people? Please explain that. I need details. When we lack doctors how do you solve that problem? The government does not have a magic wand.
    1
  38. Brian, if I refuse to give up my home to a homeless person and that person freezes to death, did I just commit murder? Be honest here. Only people denied care are those who cannot afford it. Just like that homeless person cannot afford a home. We can't just give things away, resources are limit.
    1
  39. Brian, I don't deny that companies hold back innovation at times. Government cannot solve that. The free market will. If anything government will make it worse as businesses will not produce at all. Again, WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET SYSTEM IN HEALTHCARE.
    1
  40. "how does gov help ppl. Gov enables a system that allows people to access health regardless of financial worth. " Ok, how? Again, remember that we lack resources.
    1
  41. "are countries with gov health care lacking doctors? " Yes, that is why they have longer wait times and lower quality in many ways, especially in critical care. " Is that a thing or something youre making up because you heard a fox news pundit say it?" Nope, I have studied the issue of healthcare. That is why I can get in so much details.
    1
  42. "Before I can address your analogy of giving up your home I need you to explain how that is that relevant to having government health care. I would need to understand how thats even remotely similar. " It is similar because I am an individual that denies my home to someone. Just like a doctor will deny care if someone does not have enough money or he simply does not have time. That is the issue. We lack resources. We can never cover everyone, period. You are saying we can which means you have to force doctors to cover people regardless of their income and regardless of that doctor's time. Here is the problems you get. You get overworked doctors who will charge more prices, or less doctors because government will reduce pay. As Shapiro said, universal healthcare is great for very very very basic care such as pregnancies. But for critical care or specialized care it isn't. That is why the US leads the world in cancer survival research.
    1
  43. "we cant just give things away limited resources. Taxes would be paying for the services nothing is being handed out for free..." It goes beyond taxes. We lack doctors. How do you account for that? How do you stop doctors from raising prices now that they have higher demand? It isn't as easy as raise taxes.
    1
  44. Brian, it is more than just doctors. It is specialists. You are looking at primary care physicians. Shapiro covers this very well. "And they made it clear that the shortage occurs in both private and public health care services." I agree. However, with the private sector there is the incentive to become a doctor.
    1
  45. "thats not similar in one case someone is selling something and the other you are expecting someone to give away their ownership. Thats not the same dude. That analgoy sucks dude" It is the same. We lack doctors. So what do you do? Do you force doctors to work for less? Do you just accept that and allow for longer waiting times? Do you force doctors to work longer? What do you do? With the homeless case we let them die. Why? Because we lack homes. Same as with healthcare.
    1
  46. " dude doctors in Canada make good money." Define "good money." You really have to stop with these vague, subjective statements. "Shapiro is wrong about that. " Provide evidence. "People would still go to school to become a doctor" Why when they can become something else, earn more and not work for the government. Look a public education. We lack teachers. Being a teacher is not that demanding compared to being a doctor in terms of schooling, but we lack them. "Also that problem stems from a predatory schooling system that puts people in debt" Uh, not true. You become a doctor you earn a high wage and will pay off that debt in no time. People don't worry about money going to the medical field. But that brings up a great point. The federal government subsidized education with the loan program increasing demand without increasing supply. We lacked professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, etc. What did universities do? They raised tuition. What will stop healthcare from doing the same thing?
    1
  47. Brian, I watched the "documentary". He starts out by saying the truth, healthcare is complicated. I agree with that 100%. That is why I am saying you and Kyle cannot simply say that all we have to do is raise taxes, have the government run healthcare, and things will be better. Healthcare is far too complicated. You want a simple solution to a very complex problem. That is my problem with people like you, Kyle and others on the ultra left. Healthcare is very complex. I have friends that work in it. I do research myself that is healthcare related with my NIH grant. I know this first hand. You are on the outside looking in. You are saying "Well gee, all we have to do is raise taxes and create a law that has the government cover everyone and things will be all better, derp". It isn't that easy. I wish it was, I really do. I wish there was this easy button to push but guess what, it does not exist. Healthcare is a nearly $4 trillion industry where the government already pays $1 trillion into it. The workers in it spend nearly a decade in post secondary schooling and then many years in residency to work in that field. It is a highly evolving field that is very stressful. I am highly critical of your "solutions" because they are very vague and thus poor on a complex issue. And when I even bring that idea up, and show you how wrong Kyle is by refusing to dig in the issue, you say I want to kill people. That is a problem.
    1
  48. "But your initial question asked how would gov help. I was saying that the government is helping by making sure people who need it get it. " How? "You are suggesting that the 45 000 people who die annually result because the services arent available due to shortage in doctors. No its due to lack of affordibilty." Why is it expensive? High demand and low supply. Econ 101. If you took business courses this should be basic. There are other factors as well, such as no free market system in healthcare but instead a for profit system with many government restrictions, but consider high demand and low supply. "The amount of people who recieve health care annually on average would remain the same" No it wouldn't it would increase greatly.
    1
  49. " dude quit getting me to define what you consider vague." It is vague. Ok, here. I will present my argument like do. We need a free market healthcare system. That's just common sense, no debate what so ever. It is the best system to provide decent healthcare to all. Also, we need a free market system overall. That too is common sense, no debate at all. That will lead to reasonable wages. There, I present my argument like you are doing.
    1
  50. I will continue to argue like you. Universal healthcare is disaster. There is no debate there. It is clear that it does not work. What does work in providing decent care is the free market system. Universal healthcare is terrible, that is just common sense.
    1
  51. " lol thats not what I meant by it being common sense." What did you mean? That is my interpretation of "common sense". "What is in the best interests of the people is an admirable standard of living" Define "admirable". "I said an acceptable standard of living." Define "acceptable". "saying the peoples interests are served when they can afford all their bills and can afford to save, have a beer or go to the movies." I don't go to the movies. What bills? How many roommates? What kind of beer? What about people who don't drink? " I am just simply saying people would be happy with a wage that allows them to afford the basic needs plus some things like internet and a phone" I would agree, but we were discussing policy. "I said it would be in the peoples best interest if health care was part of the taxes they are already paying." 80% of voters in Colorado said no. But besides that, why not homes? Why not food? How about the government pays for everything?
    1
  52. Brian, to repeat some of the things you say "You say unions benefit from minimum wage increase but is Kyle asking for a reasonable wage for people working in America, " That is where I ask to define "reasonable". You support policy that raises the min. wage to a "reasonable" wage. All this vague talk stems off of policies you support in min. wage, universal healthcare, etc. I called you out to give details and you moved the goal posts.
    1
  53. Brian, the phrase "living wage" is 100% subjective and means nothing. I have shown people that by earning $6/hr I can have enough to live off of and still be saving over $100 a month. My "living wage" is different than that of my neighbor, my co-worker, my boss, etc. It is all subjective which is why that phrase means nothing. It is another appeal to emotion phrase used by the left to avoid going into details on complex issues. "You always hold dear the positions that fuck over the public than get all pissy when people call you out for being heartless and gutless." Here is the problem. At the very core, when you go deep on these issues, especially economically, the political left bases their ideas on emotions, the political right bases their ideas on facts, logic and reasoning for the most part. And what we have done is argued far enough to get to that core. I am sticking to facts and reasoning, you are going with emotions. You are saying that my ideas "fuck over the public" with zero evidence and then get all emotional. Now that is no to say one side is better than the other. We always need facts and reasoning, but we are still human and thus we do have emotions. This is to say that is who each side bases their ideas. It is not me getting pissy, it's you. I am forcing you to try to defend your stance with facts and reasoning and you just claim that I want others to die. " What positions do you advocate that positively impact the poor and sick? None so far. Why is that? Is it because you hate the poor and dont want the sick to become healthy? OR is it because youd rather people die than imagine a gun to Bens Shapiros wifes head?" I can easily argue how a free market system will behoove us more in healthcare. I have shown you how that even with universal healthcare people still die in those systems. Our for profit system in the US has led to better R&D, higher cancer survival rates, and better quality of care for critical situations. The problem is cost. Cost is high due to the lack of a free market system. No free market system means the consumer cannot negotiate prices and force companies to compete. We do not have a free market due to many government restrictions. You want to add more. LASIK is a part of the free market. It is not covered by insurance and is not heavily regulated by the government. Overtime it has become cheaper and better. The government restricts healthcare a lot giving too much power to the insurance companies. You simply want to transfer that power from insurance companies to the federal government. I want to spread that power to the people as that has always led to a better product with lower prices. My ideas do improve people's lives and I have a long history to point to. I don't hate poor people either. I was raised poor. "Private health care is great even if it kills far more people than socialized health care." You have zero evidence to support that statement. "Is private policing something your free markets would keep in check? What about private intelligence agencies? How about private courts is that ideal too? Private militaries would be great because the rich could truly rule more directly than you could settle everything once and for all!!" You see, this is where I have standards. You can't have private courts and military due to the Constitution. The Constitution outlines the role of the federal government. There is a desire to have government, but it must be limited. That is what the Constitution is there for. You see, I have standards with my ideas. I don't have to resort to appeal to emotion statements like "living wage" or "reasonable". You do as you do not understand the topic well enough. You really need to branch away from Kyle.
    1
  54. "100% subjective but still has meaning. You think it means slave like conditions and others think it means a wage that allows for a standard of living above the poverty line. " It is 100% thus it has no meaning when it comes to policy. As for slaves, slaves were forced to work. Brian, I know people get sick, I know people miss work. I have been there. But also people can get roommates, they can work more than one job, they can learn how to balance a budget and find activities for enjoyment that do not cost money, or in my case actually brings in money. For example, I am a sports official, that pays me money as is an activity I do for fun. You can do basketball and earn $60 a game. You exercise, spend time with some friends and earn money. Or you can read which costs almost nothing. There are ways. You say "You like always, are arguing for slave like conditions," Slaves were forced to work. They were treated like property. You are bringing up another appeal to emotion statement to ignore the details of the argument. You say "but have no regard for real life factors - tune out reality." I just gave you reality. People can learn how to balance a budget, get roommates, take on a second job, or even go in temporary debt until they get a higher paying job. That's life. I am in debt now due to college loans, but I am a PhD candidate close to graduating and seeing my yearly income increase, at least, 300%. Life is work. You don't get everything you want. "Yes you are breaking down simple math and looking at it logically. So am I. The difference is I have morals and ethics." Really? What is moral about paying people more then they are worth? What is moral about teaching laziness? That is what you are doing? I want to teach people who to manage a budget, how to work hard and move up and become more productive in society. You want to teach people how to complain and use government force to get what they want. What is moral about that? Again, you are saying your ideas are morally superior to try to silence me. I work very hard myself and I have worked hard to push people to become productive. I have worked hard to teach people advanced topics in physics and chemistry so they can become more productive in society. What have you done? Don't come to me as if I have no morals. " I don't preach for a wage that reduces my fellow citizens to slum like conditions that forces a life of endless work." No, you preach for a government to hold a gun to people's head and force them to pay. Or worse, you preach for a system where businesses have to make a choice of taking a loss or not hiring people at all. The min. wage has been known to kill lots of jobs for the disadvantage. Congrats, you support making people unemployed. Who is the moral one now? "The worst is people like you turn around and demean and devalue these types of people in society and blame them for where they are when in reality it's the system you protect with basic math and oversimplifications of the real world that forces a large portion of society to live in these conditions." I was poor once in my life. I earned $5.15/hr. I still only earn $23,000 a year. " You assume a very unreasonable life - a life that is perfect and without error - to save. This is simply not the case and borders on the line of slavery." Again, slaves were forced to work. Plus, the issues you brought up I have accounted for. For example, I will live walking distance from work, no need for a car. The apartment will take care of plumbing. I don't watch TV. The apartment pays for internet. I included cellphone cost in my analysis. So what is a "living wage"? You talk about a world that is not perfect. OK. What about someone who gets cancer? What about someone with three kids whose wife dies and one of their kids needs heart surgery? Their "living wage" is very high? Why not make the "living wage" $1000/hr? Also, how many hours? Why not make it a "living salary" to eliminate businesses restricting hours? Heck, why not mail people $100,000 a year? Eliminate the lack of perfection in this world? You are the one claiming the world is perfect and all you need is government to make it that way.
    1
  55. "I will assume you just hate the people more than the CEO at mcdicks. " Mcdicks, cute, nice maturity. The CEO of McDonalds does not set wages. They are franchised. Fun fact, though. If you were to cut the pay of CEOs to zero and spread their money to all of the employees there, they will earn very little. For example, cut the salaries of the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread that money to the 525,000 lowest paid workers of Walmart those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. What do you gain by complaining about CEO pay? " I don't engage in these conversations, I never have. I will admit, that I find your stances appalling. You can somehow argue that having 80 000 000 people in your country just scraping by is good. " You refuse to engage because you, like Kyle, live in a bubble. I want to solve poverty, but people are in poverty due to numerous reasons. It is not because people are rich. And you don't solve poverty by just giving money away, that makes it worse. What history has shown is that the free market solves it. "You seem to want to argue that people shouldn't have access to healthcare and it's fine." Never have once. I want everyone to have access to very high quality of care. "All of your positions have negative effects on large groups of people" You have never justified that position. However, please stop saying I don't want to help others. I do. I want what is best for this country. You don't as you don't want to engage in an honest conversation without smearing your opponent. This is why your side is losing.
    1
  56. "The CEO of Walmart makes 35 million a year and you are arguing the idea that 80 million can make it in America on 6/hr. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA" Ok, and? If you cut the pay of Walmart's CEO that will be less than a dollar for those 80 million. What do you solve? Why are you changing the topic to banking?
    1
  57. Brian, I don't support murder on the poor.
    1
  58. Hahahahahahahaha, shows you how popular he is.
    1
  59. You are correct. Many who listen to talk radio do so while working. That is the market. It has nothing to do with silencing the left and everything to do with money and where the market is at.
    1
  60. Burg Skeletal, a lot of talk radio is online as well.
    1
  61. DiglettUser, care to give examples of me saying such things?
    1
  62. max howard, that is correct. Shapiro called out Cenk and TYT on money in politics because if one opposes money in politics they have to oppose all money in politics. Shapiro is correct that unless there is quid pro quo nothing illegal is being done, that money is simply donated to politics to help them get their message across. Just like money was donated by a politician to Cenk to create TYT.
    1
  63. Jesse Stevenson, Progressive Voice does jerk off to Kyle constantly. Most of his videos are videos of Kyle.
    1
  64. "He also is a republican Establishment parrot box, the majority of his bullshit flows right along with everything that comes from the right wing establishment and basic narrative," Wow, another comment with criticisms and no examples. This is why Shapiro is so popular, he actually gives examples to his points while his opponents simply say "he's stupid" or "he talks fast" or "he bullshits" with no real examples. This is why he is far more relevant than someone like Kyle.
    1
  65. Kristopher Hall, I responded to them.
    1
  66. Ignar, there are many conservatives on campus, they are quiet though. The vocal groups are leftists. They are typically the ones in charge of some student council group and they are the ones who organize events. Now to be fair it is more of a west coast issue, and I go to college now at a university near the west side. And our student council is very left leaning. They refused to invite any right wing candidate during the election, they hold BLM rallies which are supported by the student council, they do silence the right on my campus. So in my case it is happening. You go to smaller universities towards the midwest it is not a big deal. But in many places it does exist.
    1