Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "John Stossel"
channel.
-
2100
-
182
-
116
-
93
-
34
-
28
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
@YashArya01
Government should be as small as possible, but certain basic services is where it should be put to use, such as the military, law enforcement, firefighting, and building of public roads. I would have put ATC in that group, but Stossel made an excellent case to privatize it. Trurthfully, I'm still not clear how that would work in practice, but Stossel made a strong enough case that I'm convinced it can be done, as it apparently has been in numerous countries. Were I a member of the United States Congress I would certainly want to hear more from both sides, but I'm already convinced by Stossel that the answer most likely involves its privatization.
Thank you for the intelligent follow-up question. Worthwhile discussion on YT does in fact exist. Who knew?
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@matthewkeebler2326
Thinking she did the right thing is not at all worse than spite; it is merely a difference of opinion regarding letting 8 year olds walk home alone. May I add: Who said that she still believes she did the right thing? I read several articles on the case after watching this video, and none had any follow-up quotes from anyone - not the 911 caller, not the arresting officer, not the local police chief, nor the prosecutor, not the judge, not the defense attorney, no one - outside of Heather Wallace, the obvious victim here, along with her son, Aidan. So anyone announcing what the 911 caller thought then and thinks now is engaged in mindreading and baseless accusations. Let us stick with the known facts, shall we?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@KamoGaming999
1. There is a world of difference between someone having a legitimate change of view on an issue or two, versus someone changing their mind on a dozen issues right before an election, specifically right after they're asked a tough question. The latter is more than a little suspicious.
2. My point about your being new to this was in response to your suggestion that I don't just take this video at face value, whoever this video host is. My response was to point out that my opinion on RFK Jr. has been in place long before I watched this video, and that the host here isn't just some guy, but the legendary John Stossel. So yes, your comment to me seemed to assume that I was also new to all this and needed to further research the matter, which is why I noted that I am very, very familiar with the players here.
3. Those who are more familiar with RFK Jr. tend not to be his supporters. He hasn't been vetted by the media because he is not a serious threat to win anything, which is how he gets the support he does - such as it is - from those who see his ads or interviews but haven't heard any pushback. Well, yeah, then he sounds good, but it doesn't mean much.
Follow up on:
* Eliza Cooney
* Mary Richardson Kennedy
* Robert H. Boyle
Or, better yet, try reading some of the following:
* "RFK Jr. Really Had Quite A Week", Slate magazine article
* "RFK Jr.'s Family Doesn't Want Him To Run. Even Though They May Not Know His Darkest Secrets." Vanity Fair Article
* "Ask Not", book by Maureen Callahan
* "RFK Jr.: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And The Dark Side Of The Dream", book by Jerry Oppenheimer
* "RFK Jr. spent years stoking fear and mistrust of vaccines. These people were hurt by his work", Associated Press article
* "How RFK Jr. hiring a bird smuggler threw his environmental group into turmoil", Washington Post article
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@metalman666ization
You Austrians tend to be off the deep end. I particularly enjoy your claim that I'm the one cherrypicking, when the two claims you brought are the very definition, and that would be true even if they made sense.
Only a radical Austrian would prefer that the vaccination system shut down so we can watch measles, mumps, rhubella, and lord knows what other diseases run rampant, just so he can claim to be a pure libertarian. Sometimes government involvement makes sense, such as with law enforcement and firefighting. Trump had the federal government underwrite much of the Covid vaccine research, which has saved countless lives. I'm sure you were opposed, right? Rather have dead bodies everywhere in order to be a 100% pure Austrian, of course.
Anyone who knows the first thing about Reagan's presidency could not possibly claim that he did not deregulate. In fact, Reagan removed price controls on oil and gas, reduced restrictions on the financial services industry, and relaxed enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The Department of the Interior also opened large areas of public land for oil drilling.
Furthermore, there is no bigger regulation than limiting one's ability to make money with onerous taxes, which Reagan cut down to size.
I don't know which Austrian purist you are parroting here, but your ignorance is palpable.
1
-
1
-
@metalman666ization
No, unlike you I am a knowledgeable, rational, thinking person.
If asked about Reagan's legacy, not one person would raise the two issues you did among the top 100 of his presidency; the take on the first one is entirely misguided, and if the second one exists, I can't find it.
Reagan took a country which had ceased to believe in itself, which was at the mercy of the Soviet Union, and which had outrageously high (by US standards) inflation and unemployment, and saved the country, in short order, on all counts.
You listened to some libertarian wacko - some Ron Paul/John McAfee/Tom Woods type - and are parroting his claims while understanding very little.
In real life, Reagan cut taxes and regulations, as I specified above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joesloadeddiaper3007
1. The top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% combined. That's called paying vastly more than their "fair share".
2. Bernie the socialist is a capitalist when it comes to his own money. He used to rail against millionaires, until he became one himself. Now he owns three homes, but still cashes his paycheck as a Senator, and another paycheck from Burlington, Vt., as pension from when he was mayor. In short, he wants others to pay more, while he gets rich. Btw, he can make a donation to the US Government at the Treasury Department website any time he wants. What is he waiting for?
3. Socialism has failed always, everywhere, every time. If you think that socialism has worked in the Nordic countries, then you really should stop believing everything Bernie tells you. Try reading Nima Sanandaji's "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism" instead, which provides, you know, the facts.
4. Your claim that the IRS goes after those who make $40,000 while ignoring millionaires is preposterous. The bottom half in the US pays 3% of the taxes, the top half 97%. You really believe the IRS audits some guy making $40,000 who takes standard deductions? That obviously makes no sense. For what payoff, exactly? It is just a jealousy-based argument in your mind, for which you can provide no evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Michael Hardwick
I wrote responses repeatedly, every one of which YT has automatically deleted. Anyone with access to the internet can easily find Ron Paul's long history of racist, anti-Semitic, and conspiracist pronouncements. He repeatedly praised David Duke, suggested that the "Jews" may have been behind the bombing of the World Trade Center, wrote that AIDS was intentionally created, compared Israel to the 1930s National Socialists, and more.
The US was isolationist leading up to both world wars. As a result, we were insufficiently prepared, particularly for WWII.
A strong, powerful, up-to-date military and a government ready and willing to use it is the #1 deterrent to other countries, and therefore the best way to avoid war, as well as the best way to minimize US casualties should war happen nonetheless.
As to Ron Paul's isolationism, that was an open part of his platform, as every reasonably-well informed person knows.
1
-
@noclue30
I wrote responses repeatedly, every one of which YT has automatically deleted. Anyone with access to the internet can easily find Ron Paul's long history of racist, anti-Semitic, and conspiracist pronouncements. He repeatedly praised David Duke, suggested that the "Jews" may have been behind the bombing of the World Trade Center, wrote that AIDS was intentionally created, compared Israel to the 1930s National Socialists, and more.
The US was isolationist leading up to both world wars. As a result, we were insufficiently prepared, particularly for WWII.
A strong, powerful, up-to-date military and a government ready and willing to use it is the #1 deterrent to other countries, and therefore the best way to avoid war, as well as the best way to minimize US casualties should war happen nonetheless.
As to Ron Paul's isolationism, that was an open part of his platform, as every reasonably-well informed person knows.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WanderingExistence
Holy lord, are you embarassing yourself. Are you unaware that "democracy" and "free market capitalism" are entirely intertwined? (I note that you haven't even bothered to identify your preferred alternative.) Since Malcolm Gladwell popularized the genre in the 1990s, and Freakonomics exploded onto the best-seller lists a few years later, hundreds of books of this type have been released. I'm glad you've read one of them, although you seem unaware of the gentleman's given name. (It's Morgan, by the way. Morgan Housel.) Similarly, you repeatedly reference "Vablen Goods", which also does you no favors, as the term is "Veblen", not "Vablen". Anyway, you have no basis for which to treat Morgan Housel as some of deity, when the guy wrote a book a whopping two years ago, and the book - hardly a bestseller - has both its fans and detractors, among the few people who have read it. Your only reference point is that you are among that group, and are seemingly unaware of anything else. Starting, of course, with the legendary Thomas Sowell, who has sold 100,000x as many books as Mr. Hausel has, and whom you falsely claim has been disproven, despite your utter ignorance of the man's beliefs, and your absolute inability to provide a scintilla of evidence for your remarkable claim, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.
Now, being the fool that you are, you will again respond with childish comments, including grade school nicknames, as some sort of substitute for knowledge or logic. You are fooling no one, of course, except yourself - if that. But with nowhere else to go, I have no doubt you will keep digging yourself further into a hole. Go right ahead.
1
-
@WanderingExistence
Yup, I figured you'd further embarass yourself, and you didn't disappoint. Twisting or misunderstanding my point (not sure which is worse), refusing to accept responsibility for your actions, lying about the nickname calling, and all while failing to articulate an opinion on economic worldview, while simultaneously refusing to admit that you lied when you called Sowell disproven. Instead you misdirect by attacking my in-class teaching skills, of which I can happily say you know nothing. And all because you were so damn proud of yourself that you actually read a book which no one heard of. Oh, well. A loser you are, and a loser you will remain. Your choice, your loss. I feel bad for your family.
1
-
1
-
@WanderingExistence
Holy lord, are you embarassing yourself. Since Malcolm Gladwell popularized the genre in the 1990s, and Freakonomics exploded onto the best-seller lists a few years later, hundreds of books on behavioral economics have been released. I'm glad you've read one of them, although you seem unaware of the gentleman's given name. (It's Morgan, by the way. Morgan Housel.) Similarly, you repeatedly reference "Vablen Goods", which also does you no favors, as the term is "Veblen", not "Vablen". Anyway, you have no basis for which to treat Morgan Housel as some of deity, when the guy wrote a book a whopping two years ago, and the book - hardly a bestseller - has both its fans and detractors, among the few people who have read it. Your only reference point is that you are among that group, and are seemingly unaware of anything else. Starting, of course, with the legendary Thomas Sowell, who has sold 100,000x as many books as Mr. Hausel has, and whom you falsely claim has been disproven, despite your utter ignorance of the man's beliefs, and your absolute inability to provide a scintilla of evidence for your remarkable claim, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.
Instead your entire worldview is based around the only book you've ever read in your life, and for which you have no context whatsoever.
Now, being the fool that you are, you will again respond with childish comments, including grade school nicknames, as some sort of substitute for knowledge or logic. You are fooling no one, of course, except yourself - if that. But with nowhere else to go, I have no doubt you will keep digging yourself further into a hole. Go right ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Howard Stern says Trump backed Iraq War in 2002
By Samantha Reyes, CNN
Updated 11:04 PM EDT,
Thu September 29, 2016
Stern said Trump was "kinda for the Iraq War" and "us going into Iraq"
Washington (CNN)
Howard Stern confirmed Tuesday that Donald Trump expressed support for the Iraq War on his radio show in 2002 -- a claim Trump has denied despite a show recording of him offering at least measured backing.
The shock jock -- whose interview was referenced during Monday night's presidential debate -- told his listeners that Trump was "kinda for the Iraq War" and "us going into Iraq."
The interview was brought up because Trump "was saying he wasn't really for it, so they were forced to mention my name," Stern said.
Stern added that it was "kind of thrilling" to be mentioned at a presidential debate. His remarks were first reported by BuzzFeed Thursday.
A message left with Trump's campaign Thursday night seeking response to Stern's comments was not immediately returned.
The GOP presidential nominee has repeatedly said he opposed the Iraq War from before its launch, drawing a sharp contrast with his Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize the war as a senator in 2002.
But the Stern interview, in which he tepidly expressed support for the invasion, remains the only public remarks he made on the matter before the war began in March 2003.
"Yeah, I guess so," Trump said in the fall of 2002 when asked by Stern if he supported an invasion. "You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly."
When Clinton brought it up Monday, Trump first interrupted her by saying "wrong" and then went on to deny his support.
"I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out," Trump pointedly told moderator Lester Holt.
"The record shows otherwise," Holt responded.
"The record does not show that," replied Trump, who said he also told Fox News' Sean Hannity he opposed the war but the conversation was never on the record.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shawnpatton3795
YT automatically deletes comments with any links attached, in most cases. Certainly in my case.
Self-reported data is essentially meaningless. It tells you how people answer questions when they are expected to answer a certain way.
Certainly, rating a country's economic system based upon the self-reported happiness of its citizens or residents simply doesn't work at all. Perhaps Norwegians are just happy people under any circumstance, as per their culture? If you stuck Americans into Norway, where the average temperature is 100 below zero on a warm day, and you gave them all sorts of goodies for free, would they self-report being happy? Doubtful.
Anyway, Sanandaji's work is as relevant today as the day it was published. It does apples-to-apples comparisons, not bananas-to-sewing-machines as you raised, and proves incontrovertably that democratic socialism is a train wreck everywhere it is tried.
If you are truly interested in learning, then not only should you read Sanandaji's book, you should also study Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman. Sowell's "Basic Economics" is available in audiobook form for free right here on YT, along with many other works of his. (He seems to not care about protecting his intellectual property, as there are numerous channels devoted to reproducing his work, and none are ever hit with a copyright strike.) Milton Friedman can also be found all over YT.
What one gets from Friedman and Sowell is that every government program begun inevitably creates far more problems than it solves.
What one gets from Sanandaji is that the Scandinavian countries have proven that over and over without intending to.
1
-
1
-
@shawnpatton3795
1. Of course it is based upon self reporting. What else would it be based upon? Anyway, go back and check the studies that you are quoting.
2. Your comment contradicts itself within a few words. Re-read it.
As to divorce, money being its source is a total myth. Fights over money are based upon other, deeper factors, as the psychology experts note. By the way, what is the divorce rate in Hollywood? 95%?
Fact is, if you teach yourself to be miserable, you will be. That sort of thing is quite fashionable these days in the US and various other Western countries. The members of the "victim groups" hollering the loudest about how awful life is? Those are usually the fabulously successful ones.
Just last week, for example, CNBC published an article by E. Elisabet Lahti, PhD, an applied psychology researcher, titled "Finland is home to the world’s happiest people. Their No. 1 secret is this 500-year-old mindset, says psychology expert". Got it?
3. History agrees with Winston Churchill.
4. That makes no sense. You would rather be poorer as long as everyone else is, rather than be richer but less wealthy than the billionaires? How envious can one be to rather live a worse life as long as they can make everyone else miserable as well?
**
I will again encourage you to open your mind. Read the CNBC article I mentioned above. Read Nima Sanandaji. Read or watch Thomas Sowell and/or Milton Friedman. This stuff is settled, factually speaking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coolioso808
You are bringing a leftist predisposition into this conversation, an approach antithetical to the rules of economics grounded in historical-based evidence.
Prior to the introduction of the free market and the resultant industrial revolution, poverty was common and widespread, living conditions lousy, and life expectancy short. Children sometimes died in childbirth, and occasionally their mothers did as well. Child mortality was very high. War and slavery was the normal order of the day. Millions died of starvation and basic disease.
Along came Adam Smith, the American experiment, and the Industrial Revolution, and the result is a world entirely unrecognizable to nearly all prior generations. Wealth is not shared but created. Nations that have adopted the free market approach experience unfathomable wealth, with even the very poorest living lives of comfort - even decadence - as compared to their forebears of merely a century earlier, not to mention a millenium.
There. That is your basic economic history lesson.
Thomas Sowell is everpresent throughout the internet, and certainly all over YouTube. Many channels can be found devoted to his teachings, none of which Dr. Sowell is attached to, or presumably even knows about. His camp appears to be uninterested in intellectual property concerns, the result of which is that not only can many Sowell speeches and interviews be found on YT, even a number of his audiobooks can be found here. Go listen to "The Thomas Sowell Reader", or "Basic Economics", or any other of his books, all of which are both educational and entertaining.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TK-zj7cl
1. Unreadable
2. Same BS excuse socialists amd communists always make. "It wasn't real socialism/communism". Sure was, and it failed every time. It always starts the same, with the poor voting in the socialist leaded, thrilled that they will get the money taken by force from the succesful, wealthy businessmen. Shortly thereafter, of course, there is no more production of wealth, and everyone is starving to death. Some version of this happened in China, the USSR, Cambodia, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, numerous African countries, and many other places. Somehow, every one ended in failure. Meanwhile, free markets have worked to dramatically raise the living conditions of countries everywhere, and that is true even if the leader turns out to be a crooked, murderous dictator, such as Chile under Augusto Pinochet. Awful as Pinochet was, and he was evil, the country overall prospered nonetheless, at least those he didn't murder. Chile remained the success story of South America for years, despite Pinochet's thievery and murder, because free markets are successful. Contrast with any of the socialist examples mentioned above: They wish they had Pinochet, who "only" killed 3000 people, which is nothing compared to the millions murdered in all the above countries, and whose citizens prospered despite Pinochet's theft, as there was plenty of money to go around anyway. In Venezuela, meanwhile, they kill their pets for food.
According to the UN, by the way, one BILLION people were removed from poverty between 2000 and 2020 due to free market reforms. How's that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1