Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Rise of Islamism in Denmark and Sweden (Pt. 2) | Flemming Rose | FREE SPEECH | Rubin Report" video.

  1. russell d Are you sure you know what "regressive" means? It doesn't mean: "criticizing the republicans" just FYI
    4
  2. Eon Fontes-May I've been a very vocal critic of how the Rubin Report has developed, but I must say that your post reflect exactly NOT what my criticism has been about. (And I certainly hope that Dave is aware that not all criticism is like the one you just did) I don't doubt that Dave is a liberal (in the true sense of the word). It's also obviously false that he hasn't had "leftitst" on. - however, when he does, the talk is often not about actual important issues. My criticism is about that while he might have been fighting for free speech, he has totally failed his stated goal of "applying reason to the big questions". It's perfectly fine to have right wing people on (and I liked the Glenn Bech interview), .. it might even be fine to have predominantly right-wing people on if you cannot get the leftists or regressives to come on ... but don't sit there throwing soft balls at the right wing science deniers. Don't throw soft balls at anyone ... I know he can do it. He challenged Bishop Barron ... but I feel he has abandoned the goal of reason by throwing soft balls at too many right wing ideologues.
    4
  3. I can understand you have noticed that TYT and Sam Seder has regressive tendencies. But what on earth do you have against David Pakman? ... To me he seems like one of the YT media persons most capable of objective thought you can find.
    3
  4. Shadilay Kekistanis Btw... if I didn't mention it already... this is worth a read wrt. the differences between conservatism and liberalism - and Europe and the US. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/op-ed-real-realignment/ When I say conservatism is NOT the same as liberalism, I am, of course - as a European - speaking about European conservatism and classical liberalism. But I would also argue that the US republican party have been very alien to science and reason - and in that way also rejects the ideas of the liberal thinkers of the enlightenment.
    3
  5. russell d Well ... that just turned your argument into an unsubstantiated accusation. Which specific criticism of the Republicans do you think is "Just because they are republicans" ?
    2
  6. I Love Secular Talk ah man ... that's karma :)
    2
  7. realhiphopfan 1 That's why I have time and time again suggested to Dave that he brings on people who are right-wing/libertarian/conservative which actually respects reason an science. In other words.. .drop the Steven Crowder kind of guest. Bring on conservatives like Bob Inglish, or Climate scientist Kerry Emanuel. ... or libertarian Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen center. But of course... if you actually don't care about reason, logic and science and only care about bashing SJWs ... by all means... Have Steven Crowder and similar on again and again ... It'll just be without my funding.
    2
  8. Keksi Alex Jones is concerned about anything and everything.
    2
  9. TMA2 I think I can agree with that.  - kinda. I get impatient for actual information when I listen to Kulinski though. He spends too much time ranting. Pakman is more to the point and better researched. I worry about Dave sliding to the right, and I agree Prager was an example. I don't agree with about the guest video for PragerU though. I think Dave nailed it (except calling classical liberalism a conservative cause - that's nonsense). And I do think Dave treats his right wing guests with kids gloves way too often. I very much fear that the result will be that the people searching for a reason, science and logic based liberalism will leave the Rubin Report and the audience Dave will be left with is the fact-free right-wing Ayn Rand anarcho-capitalist crowd and it's all end in just bashing SJWs .
    2
  10. piguyerrific As I recall, he only defended that they published them. He didn't argue that they were necessarily true.
    1
  11. Tymprasta "David Pakman has the self-righteousness of TYT at times." I don't really care if what he says is correct. And I would say the same for Cenk - the problem being that Cenk is just blatantly wrong about some things when the topic goes to his ideological blind spot.
    1
  12. Shadilay Kekistanis You are mangling the terms "conservatism" and "liberalism" beyond recognition. You can trace back the conflict between conservatism and liberalism to the conflict between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. Here's a description: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365296/edmund-burke-v-thomas-paine-nat-brown The problem in the US today is that the so-called "conservatives" in the GOP has gone corporatist (and lately nationalist) ... and that the "liberals" have gone off the deep end in authoritarian political correctness and at the same time because of the two-party system (which is toxic to political debate IMHO) has to absorb everything from hippies to socialists
    1
  13. Shadilay Kekistanis Here in Europe "liberalism" still means classical liberalism and there are of course several flavors. In Denmark we have 4 parties who trace their ideological basis back to classical liberalism - but all with somewhat different reasoning. I my self is a member of the Georgist / geo-libertarian party and we of course think that Thomas Paine thought the basic classical liberal principles better through than others. For instance, we are very much aware of economic externalities and against monopolies and believe that the right to equal opportunity and the non-aggression principle  applies across generations. We have - for instance - no right to ruin the planet for later generations. We don't use the term "progressive" ... except when people think they should be inspired from it being used in the US.
    1
  14. Shadilay Kekistanis I don't know what the "progressives" in the US have brewing... it seems self-destructive and leading to authoritarianism. Also isn't the word "progressives" already abused in advance? Didn't it start with being used by republicans in the start of last century? Looking at it from the outside it seems all ideological labels in the US has lost their meaning. - thanks to the two-party system. To me, classical liberalism is about some core principles: * Self ownership: You have the right to your own body. * You have the right to the fruit of your own labor. * Your personal freedom extends only so far that it does not infringe on the equal freedom of others. (across generations) I would encourage you to read Thomas Paine ("RIghts of Man", "Age of Reason", "Agrarian Justice") **. I think he nailed what the logical conclusions from this (including the cross generation part). He also pointed out in Agrarian Justice that the unimproved land was not the fruit of your own labor. The right to the fruits of your own labor only includes the improvements and product you make of the land. Henry George some 80 years later laid the economical theoretical foundation of why this monopolization of natural opportunities like land is actual the reason why we can't eradicate poverty - in "Progress & Poverty" **: PS: Paines works can be a heavy reads since they are very much entangled in practicalities of the time.(French/US revolution). One can often skip the parts where he accounts for suggested budgets for the French revolutionary government :)  Wrt. Progres&Poverty there's an updated modern english version: http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm
    1
  15. Shadilay Kekistanis > "Would you be against democratising the removal of natural resources as a means of distributing wealth more equitably and sustainably?" I'm not sure what you mean by "democratising" . I you mean government expropriation of all natural resources (including land?) ... then that's not something Georgsts/geolibertarians (*) support. First of all - you need title to land and resources to have guaranties that you can harvest your investment in general. Secondly - it's not necessary to change the ownership situation. All you have to do is to tax the economic rent of the land/resources. Thomas Paine observes this in Agrarian Justice (read it, it's not very long): https://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html Henry George explicitly states this in his letter to Pope Leo XIII: "*We propose – leaving land in the private possession of individuals, with full liberty on their part to give, sell or bequeath it—simply to levy on it for public uses a tax that shall equal the annual value of the land itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on it.*"  -- http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/the-science-of-economics/letter-to-pope-leo-xiii.html But you really need to read the whole letter. There's no single short quote which does the argument justice. Compare it to Paines Agrarian Justice (and preferably read Progres&Poverty) Collecting the economic rent (the revenue not resulting from your own labor) as tax is sufficient to achieve the goal equality of opportunities. And it will prevent transfer of wealth from future generations in the form of previous generations monopolizing wealth. Amongst other things it will keep the economy from having bubbles in the housing market preventing young people from buying a house. You can generalize the thinkings of Henry George - and modern Georgists do. It's not only about "land" (HG also regarded "land" as any "natural opportunity"), but in more general terms it's about taxing the positive externalities society imposes on natural resources (like land) you own AND taxing the negative externalities YOU impose on others (which would otherwise have you violate the non-agression principle). And ensuring the free market forces can operate by taxing monopolies on natural resources. (like the radio wave spectrum). That's why a Georgist party like the Danish Georgist/classical liberal party is a proponent of a fee-n-dividend carbon-tax to combat global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
    1
  16. Shadilay Kekistanis "would you support an emissions trading scheme," No - I'm on the same page as Climate Scientist James Hansen here. Why would anyone bring banking bureaucracy into this? Why should Wall street have percentages for managing a solution to the problem? A carbon-fee is a much simpler solution. And more effective. The cap-n-trade emission trading scheme has already shown it self not to be effective in the EU. To me it sounds like an idea thought out by bankers because they know they will benefit. However... as long as we don't have a proper carbon-fee - that's the solution we have, and I'm not for removing it unless it's replaced with a fee-n-dividend carbon-tax.
    1
  17. Shadilay Kekistanis You can find it all on the net. Also as audio-books. There's no copyright on these writings anymore. Examples: http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm https://librivox.org/rights-of-man-by-thomas-paine/ Librevox is on Youtube too.
    1
  18. Mister Mood Not really comparable  - is it?
    1
  19. Mister Mood because it's a different kind of show ... anyway, I agree that Dave has gotten caught up in bashing SJW and however noble a cause that might be, he seems to have lost sight of other equal relevant issues. (and all that talk about "reason" never really went anywhere... except lip service)
    1