Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Ben Shapiro Makes Ass Of Self During Ridiculous Climate Change Rant (Permanently Discrediting)" video.

@imjustboredleavemealone9055 Gal Gadot is pro-IDF though
6
@darkglass3011 nah when it comes to gun control the facts tend to side with the pro gun side
4
The things that piss me off about net neutrality are 1) the EU fucking killed my data plan because my carrier can't give me free data on certain apps after I hit the data cap and 2) it's hypocritical how the massive Internet websites all cried about Net Neutrality but don't want their own service to be neutral and want to have the rights of a private business It's funny, Netflix should have the right to blast terabytes of HD content through ISPs network without having to pay for the costs and google/facebook can censor whatever they want, but ISPs need to act like a public service... That's when I realized that no matter which side you turn to in the net neutrality debate, you'll hear liars pushing an agenda.
3
@will.roman-ros that's not a free market solution, though - you'd just be forcing an artificial price through government action. The free market solution would be eliminating subsidies that promote polluting industries and oil consumption and possibly charging REAL money (not that carbon tax bs) for damages caused to property (fires, draughts, floods, mud slides), air quality, water quality, countries' fish stocks in their economic zones, etc.
2
@5drtfygunjm okay I just came over from a different side of youtube and people were arguing about Soros and anti-semitism and shit. Okay so people are "paranoid" because the Open Society Foundation pushes an agenda but I come over here and I hear people going off about the Koch brothers...
2
Hey op trickle down economics is not a real thing and democrat presidents like Woodrow Wilson and JFK used low tax rates to increase tax revenue.
2
@will.roman-ros "Universal healthcare systems have experts in the field negotiate" - which is useless. If Big Pharma demands a price and the experts disagree, what happens? This happened in Portugal, the pharmaceutical company demanded over 90k per patient for a Hep C treatment and the government didn't agree with the price so they refused to buy. Obviously this caused a major shitstorm and the government was pressured into buying. The treatment was thus sold for an undisclosed amount. Do you think the price increased, or lowered? "Assuming no corruption of course" - which is a problem. Where do you go get experts in the field who are also not connected to the industry in any way? "That means even if pharma raises prices, the buyers still know what’s reasonable" - if it wasn't for the news saying that the government was refusing to overpay for treatments I would have never guessed the pharmaceutical companies could get away with charging almost 6 figures per person. The average person doesn't know the costs when he's not paying. "which I’d argue is more important than new medicine down the line" - but you're hovering right above the solution. What is forcing the medical field to be so cutting edge? If someone wanted to make money wouldn't it make sense to open a clinic with lower operating costs that would cover frequent but life-saving procedures which have existed for decades and are extremely well researched? And use mostly generic drugs? I'm pretty sure if anyone tried it the AMA would come crashing down on them for violations of some kind of regulation. You can't even lower the employment costs of doctors because there's no way that regulatory interests will ever tell colleges to drop the requirement for undergraduate years before entering med school.
2
@breeeegs the joke went over your head
2
@kg356 hope that's your response the next time there's a shooting by some sad loser.
1
I think everyone fell for the troll.
1
@MaryRoseLaughing Bad Religion?
1
@will.roman-ros "Universal healthcare doesn’t necessarily mean public takeover of the means of healthcare, rather, it can be a government intervention for the private sector" - just ask for the healthcare system to be totally nationalized. State intervention on the private sector will only make things worse, and does absolutely nothing to prevent Big Pharma or medical supply distributors and manufacturers from overcharging the government paying for the stuff. I actually would respect a position that I disagree with but seeks to completely change the situation, than take seriously the proposal to take a broken system and then absolutely mangle it through methods we know will not work. "The free-market can only work with educated, logical individuals" - sounds an awful lot like "the poors are too stupid to decide for themselves" and that's why anyone can easily argue that the left actually hates the lower classes. "It was a suggestion by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations" - the references I find are to justify the "invisible hand" concept he was not suggesting any system at all - it was an observation he made which can be incorrect for all I care, but the point of it was explaining his "invisible hand" concept and not propose any system. "Trickle down economics only happens with charitable business owners/hierarchy." - which is why everyone takes down the trickle-down strawman. The right-wing concept (and some dumb fucks on the Republican side are absolute brainlets for believing the strawman rather the actual political theory) is that putting hurdles on productivity will lead to the wealthy accumulating wealth or putting their wealth where it can't be taxed. By limiting productivity and having the rich save rather than invest not only will the country lose jobs and send people to unemployment, but the government will actually earn a lower tax revenue. " Low taxes only gets you less from the government. Less security, less education, less healthcare, and less infrastructure." - which is the totally ass-backwards way of looking at it. You think that lowering taxes lowers tax revenue but when you lower taxes productivity increases and the wealthy invest rather than hoard wealth. You actually INCREASE government revenue from low taxes. Again, Woodrow Wilson and JFK both used low tax rates to increase government revenue. Reagan massively increased tax revenue and decreased unemployment with his tax policy (although the government was at a deficit because of his spending). The point isn't that rich will give to the poor. The point is that increasing taxes lowers government revenue and kills jobs,
1