Comments by "jean-louis pech" (@jean-louispech4921) on "PragerU" channel.

  1.  @pedromeneses5661  Oups! bad typing, you are right, i would want to say "don't want" Conservatives don't want social welfare because social welfare involves horizontal social link, and conservatism reject horizontal social link between everyone, because of their unequalitarian nature. Then consevatives don't like that all poor could benefit of socail welfare, and than could get all medical support that a civilized country can offer.
    1
  2.  @pedromeneses5661  Bad answer, health care and social welfare are not different thing, they are part of the same logic, the logic of treating all humans equally as humans, and not as member of a specific category, or just as bank account. This is linked to the notion of horizontal social link. Lack of social welfare is bad for the society , since you think the society not as an abstract concept, but something made of human being. Slavery societies did not had welfare. Nazi did not gave welfare to jews, disabled, etc.... Third world countries with high criminality do not have welfare. The countries with more democracy, respect of individual freedom, less criminality, etc..., are the country with social welfare. Keeping population in the misery is a sign of great stupidity, not social welfare.
    1
  3.  @pedromeneses5661  Non worker, you mean finance ? Yes this is our system now, unlike under the 30 glorious years. Economic liberalism : favor high finance over work , and decrease in the same time social welfare, and attack social healthcare.
    1
  4. Trump care against immigrates because he wants votes. People care about life, health , education, children opportunities, not living in a conflict society, etc... This is all about the liberal politic. Conservative on the other hand campaign on issues that have irrational basis, driven by fear, or serving only the interest of a minority ( the elite ).
    1
  5.  @rickyoldtree  Oh you are so ignorant and delusional. Because what i say has more deepness than your average narrow minded conservative (pleonasm inside) can understand. Speaking about tyranny shows how you are wrong and stupid, while i just speak about a world view were peoples are really more free, and do not live under the tyranny of the plutocracy supporting economic liberalism . You are so stupid that you don't try to understand you react like a Pavlovian dog to the word communist or anything that is related to, then it means that you make zero thinking. Like all stupid conservatives you react only with stereotype. You are not enough smart for understanding that stalin or mao claiming being communist was just propaganda. And then like the king of the idiots you trust the propaganda of a dictator you find loathing. POlitic is more complex than what you believe (because you don't really think). This is why you are just another conservative joker who do not have serious opinion about politic. The proof that you are a stupid ignorant is that you don't want to see that the more democratic country are country where left wing parties have an heavy weight on the society, this country are not democratic because they are capitalists but because they have applied the ideas of the left wing movements, like the democratic vote and abolition of slavery from the french revolution allowing everybody to vote without limit of race, sex or wealth, or ideas from the socialist movement about health care, social social welfare, right and freedoms for the workers, equality between men and women, etc.... All of this things are not from capitalism, and was fought by capitalists. Nazism was supported by big capitalist corporations who were rejecting all social policies from the left wing parties of socialist origins including social democrats. If you are to stupid for not seeing that collective healthcare and social welfare are part of a common world view, this is your problem and sign of your ignorance, not the proof that i am what you say. In fact you are too ignorant for commenting what i say. Your long message is not a critic against my messages, but the exposition of your ignorance, your limitations, your stupidity.
    1
  6. conservative feel good for not sharing wealth liberal do good by making the society better for all, instead to have result near of underdeveloped countries in healthcare domain or crime.
    1
  7. historic reality conservative capitalist : poor man go fishing fish in my private fish pool poor man : this the 10 fishes i got. conservative capitalist : ok take a part of the tail of one and i take the rest poor man : but i am hungry and i get nothing from my work!!!! later....  conservative capitalist : 10$ the fish!!!! liberal : make the fish pool owning to everybody, like that people fishing the fishes can eat what they need , and share the rest with other peoples , instead to give the fruit of their work to the capitalists.
    1
  8. yes you are right no need of compation for dead peoples .
    1
  9. no freedom with misery. Autonomy don't fall upon your head by magic, you need some conditions for being able to be autonomous : healthy developpement, education, etc.... and being alive first. it helps children of poors if they die because they can't have healcare or their brain don't receive a good developemnt because of bad food? It is immoral to punish the children of poors by reducing social protection .
    1
  10. Razor The One The Light people letting poor baby to die because of lack of healthcare deserve to be between hitler and stalin, it make them acting like psychopaths, not people who care about of the life of everyone. You can put between psychopaths only people with psychopathic like behavior , like gathering heap of money at the expense of the well being and the life of others.
    1
  11.  Willie Gordon  Then conservatives are less compassionate, you are debunking the claim of the video. Conservative want the society hierarchised by wealth, limiting the freedom and life of peoples by wealth. They don't care about people who do not have wealth.
    1
  12. people without welfare are more poor.... and can be in the misery.
    1
  13.  @pedromeneses5661  well the presidency of bush was not good, it left a bad mark in the world with an illegal war and in the American economy. Yes results are everything, bad results for the conservative bush.
    1
  14. stalinism is not left wing, no more socialist or communist, he kept the labels just for the propaganda for the mass. If there is a hierarchy it is not left wing. This is very simple, because Left is born for the abolition of hierarchy. The more hierarchy to abolish , the more left wing it is. Then stalinism, is not very left wing. I don't care what says the propaganda of stalin and his successors, it is just lies and manipulation. If you are against stalin, then the first logical thing to do, is to question all the claims from stalin and the stalinism, on the basis of facts.
    1
  15.  @nandorblue  the best proof : Stalin has persecuted and executed peoples defending socialism, Marx, anarchism, etc... Stalin has persecuted ALL the historic revolutionaries from 1917. Marx was about dictatorship BY the worker FOR the workers, stalin is about dictatorship by himself OVER the worker. Marx and left wing ideologies are about collective power, not the power of a dictator. This is the base for the division Left versus Right since the French Revolution power for all against power of one or some. Left Wing, and socialism ( including Marx ) were about democratic power. Then stalinism is not left wing. There is no relation between the philosophy of Marx and the stalinism, the philosophy of Marx is based on autonomy, the emancipation of the worker, stalinism is based on the heteronomy of the power, of the society. Marx is about the destruction of the economic exploitation, stalin was the come back of the economic exploitation. If you ask the questions then it means that you don't know stalinism or Marx, or both.
    1
  16.  @nandorblue  no revolution under the constraint of two wars ( civil war and international war) end in the hand of an authoritarian system who revamps the old type of power (monarchy or tsar) under a new cover hidden with language of the revolution and the leader replace the old leader executed. In both case napoleon and stalin are traitors to the ideas of the revolution that precede them. But it is not related to ideologies driving the evolution. The French revolution of 1792 is the revolution that gave inheritance to the democracy, with the universal suffrage and the abolition of slavery. This is the ideas from the French revolution who spread in all Europe with the help of the counter revolutionary Napoleon ( the irony of the history) that mde democratic ideas popular in all the Europe in the 19th century. The rule of the riches of the American, British revolutions and French revolution of 1789 could not make dream the peoples . The spring of 1848 was born in Europe because there was the revolution of 1848 in France, in succession of the ideas of the republican revolution of 1792.
    1
  17. there si not the word socialism in the name of the fascist party. What define being socialist, or left wing/right wing is the political analysis : values, attitudes, positions in the assemblies and alliances, enemies, etc... And from this point it is easy fascist party was far right.
    1
  18. judeo-christian culture was sexist, until the modern culture, the ideas from the revolutions, etc... push changes in the society. The problem you are exposing about many feminists is serious, because they don't care about the freedom, the emancipation of women under muslim culture, and then they do not defend women, but just their interest, like false anti racist defend racism against their race only. Real feminist defend emancipation of women from all cultures and origins.
    1
  19. it is far right on the economic level : no rights , no power, to the workers at work.
    1
  20.  @mauriciolira4359  You just continuing to spread ignorance , lies, and prejudice. You defend an out dated propaganda about stalin, that only gulible ignorants can take for real The rest is just arms making wind.
    1
  21. you mean that more than 76 k idiots have no clues about history, unable to find that fascist party was a far right party and had hate against the left at the point that they killed left wing leaders...
    1
  22. For the sciences the main difference bewtween left and right is open mind ( left ) vs closed mind (right). It is not a problem of risk, the risk takers are on another line of antagonism independant from left vs right, this is egoism/selfcentred vs social link. On the first side the risk taker, there are libertarians and liberals in the european term, and they classify their antagonist as left. Then left are not liberals , even if they share some views, but on the other hand real liberals share some views with conservatives ( they don't like solidarity for exemple). There are many confusion, in the end the video look like a big strawman. But all of that is wrong. Just look at the countries that had left governement, with politics that have transformed the country : like nordics nations with lower economic inequalities, higher Human Developpement Index ( HDI ), more individiuals freedoms than in conservatives nations, less violence , etc... Conservatives politics means : great inequalities, leading to more violence, lower HDI, less social protection, more misery, less indivdual freedom. What you say about the economic is false, if there is no politic of solidarity for sharing wealth, the lower class can be taken away from the economic growth. In the 19th century, conservatives capitalists were very richs while their workers were kept in the state of misery. It was socailist movement and the more humanist liberal that made more human politics for giving rights and freedoms to the workers. If conservatives does not fear a socailist , communist or anything assimilated to this, revolution, revolt, they don't do anything for the middle and lower class. Yes conservative fear novelty, that is why they keep the system like it is, it defends the inequalities,the power of the elits, etc.... They odn't want a good society, they want a society they already know. In fact their happiness is at the cost of the social minorities well being and freedoms. It favor religious beliefs over scientific knowledge, because it feeds their rigid mind. Scientific knowledge brings a part of uncertainity that conservatives can't stand.
    1
  23. + s c There is a confusion between logic of ideas, and ideas of peoples. The positions about the variety of issues from liberals and conservatives label are not arbitrary, because each camp is related to a logic of ideas. And each logic of ideas, antagonists logic of ideas, leads to have a specific position about a specific issue, becasue they are related to psychological drives. In addition there are four logic of ideas, the other two can share positions from both side, or have a specific point of view about an issue. But real persons can be driven by different motivations , on different issues, becasue the psychology of people can be complex. This is why people can be not 100% in line with the theoric position of their camp. For example some politic positions are related to rigidity of mind, but net everybody is 100% rigid mind, in fact it must be rare to be 100% rigid mind and not pretty, then some people can be driven by their rigidity on some issues, but be more opened, using more their intelligence on some other issue.
    1
  24. +BurntBacon gun control reduce opportunity to wild use of gun , it reduce accidental death of member of families, etc.... Just look the crime rate from gun in the USA, and the crime rate in western countries with gun control. The propaganda from NRA is just propaganda. Wild guns do not reduce criminality. In fact wild guns + violent American culture = bloody mixture
    1
  25. if right wing love freedom why they don't think that live of every individual matters?
    1
  26.  @junkim5853  Stop to be irrational and ignorant. Your introduction is a pure joke when you know the history of the Nazi party, when you know and UNDERSTAND the ideology. "Nazis are not a right wing faction they sought to take heavy control on social provisions." Pure ignorance of Nazism, and left versus right antagonism. Then it can't be an argument. Left versus right is about concentration of power, about equality of power ( real left wing, and democracy) versus hierarchic power (right wing). And nazism is all about hierarchic power! Nazism is against equality. Claiming and being is not the same thing. I guess that many criminal claim to be honest or innocent. Nazim is not socialism , but nationalism, and antagonist to socialism . The nazi hate socialism and communism. Nazi persecuted and killed socialists. Nazis were on the right wing side of the German assembly!!!!! All what you say is just plain wrong there is nothing progressive in nazism, it is anti progressive, anti modernist, it belongs in the reactionary family. Left give right and freedom to workers, nazism removed all right and power inside the enterprise.....
    1
  27.  @jme7298  they are economic far right : no rigths and protections to the workers at work , economic exploitation of the workers, strikes and unions of workers forbidden, no power or control of economic power for worker. Then it is right wing. On the other hand fascism made a liberal economic politic at the start, like the right wing. Fascists were friends with big capitalism like right wing. In fact you don't understand what define left and right wing in economy. collective power where workers have autonomy of decision = left wing power. power of one or some (dictator, or capitalists) over worker is right wing power.
    1
  28.  @Thor.Jorgensen  yes : make the Rome great again! if we replace "Rome" by "USA" , it reminds me someone .... a strange hair cut, etc....
    1
  29. lol fascism is not socialism , it is right wing economic politic : subordination of the workers to authoritarians elites.
    1
  30.  Zion thirtydecember2006  State come from societies based on private property. A state with tough police, army and justice is a right wing state. Fascist party had a liberalism economy has first economic orientation. Marx and many socialists were for the abolition of the state. Then your argument does not stand. state = socialism , or socialism = state is wrong. it is very simple Socialism = collective control/ownership of the economic power by the workers. In the case of society ruled by a state the state must be controlled by the workers, and then there must have a democratic power. Nationalization with democratic power can be part of the socialism ( like with social democracies ) , state controlled economy where workers are devoid of any control of the economic power can't be socialist because it does not follow definition of the socialism. Fascisms remove any form of freedom, right or control of power to the workers, because they are far right ideology in favor of the great bourgeoisie who retake economic power over worker with the authoritarian regime.
    1
  31. racism bigotery xenophobia homophobia are words with a real meaning : narrow minded and authoritarians beliefs , hating, excluding people for what they are. islamophobia can't have different meaning ranging from hating people with ethnicity linked as muslims (racism, far right), to reject of fundamentalism On the right side you have plenty of peoples who juge people on the skin color, sex, religion, social status, etc... want discriminations following this categories.
    1
  32. you say you believe in the propaganda of a dead dictator... you say that you have no clue about political analysis and political history.
    1
  33. you mean peopel are agaisnt them? ... for the white straitght males progressists? Do you realize that LGBT are a minority among the population.
    1
  34. Fascism is against communism, socialism, worker's unions, democracy, universal suffrage, equality, against freedom of women, against racial equality, against a world of peace. Fascism is for order, hierarchy, identity, rule of one , sexism, war, working hand in hand with capitalists . Beign for sexism , identity, etc.. do not make them anti conservatives, they are anti progressives in fact. Pinochet and mussolini had economic politic based on economic liberalism, abolition of worker's unions, abolition of worker's rights. They have arrested, assassinated left wing peoples. They are definitively far right. Anti communism is not left wing. reactionaries are against communism, liberalism , and they are far right.
    1
  35.  @therealracerxtablet5162  well denying of fact is not an answer. Pointless answer. Nordic countries have the best level of freedom and human development, this is a fact. Then find another thing for defending your lies.
    1
  36.  @therealracerxtablet5162  nothing related to social democracy or real statistic about the country .
    1
  37.  @jhroomy  it is not communists, it is stalin. The same stalin who persecuted communists, Marxists, socialists, anarchists, etc... even the historical Russians revolutionaries of 1917. You forget that nazi have persecuted, killed Germans communists, socialists, etc.... they were the first to populate camps. Your point of view is not based on knowledge, but on partial facts taken for an totality of all the facts.
    1
  38.  @jhroomy  resistance in Germany was made by socialists, communists, etc.... the propaganda anti nazi came from the communists and socialists since the 20's. Communists were great actors in the resistance in many countries, in France, in Yugoslavia with tito, etc... For the France, the 17 June 1940 a communist called to the resistance against the nazis, one day before the famous call from General De Gaulle... What you say is not accurate, it is not history, just lack of knowledge of the subject.
    1
  39. video trying to rehaping some words......
    1
  40. This is not fascist, this is socialism, and this is antagonist to fascism.
    1
  41.  @thiefofknights6543  in fact i made the answer to fat chins . The irony in your message is very clear, because all your claims are against fascist ideology.
    1
  42. conservatives do not allow poor people to be able to care of of them themselves. In ideal conservative society there are poor people who are not able to take care of themselves. By this way it make conservative feeling superior. This is why conservatives are for inequalities, because they need to feel superior above people they take out of means for taking care by themselves.
    1
  43.  Andrea Mendenhall  Yes this is the truth. Progressives make politics that make the life of poor better. It is their politic that allow the formation of a strong middle class in the 30 glorious years. The same politics allows poor peoples to not live in the misery. You forget this point : the misery, the worst state. But f poor are in bad health state because of lack of healthcare they can find and do a good work.... And conservatives in many countries were, or are against health care for poor peoples, and their children. Yes finding a job with a good wage, this is the fight of the progressives, not the conservatives who defend only the interest of the owners of the capital property.
    1
  44.  @williamjewell6247  it is not about the video,made by a conservative, it is just his beliefs, it is about scientific knowledge of the subject. Real progressives/liberal peoples are driven by empathy , then compassion, not conservatives, this is a scientific result, that fit with political analysis of ideologies. Peoples who deny or limit healthcare are not compassionate, and this is not progressive/liberal but conservative who do this.
    1
  45.  @williamjewell6247  ROFLOL it is common sense only for narrow minded right wing peoples and for defender of economic liberalism. Look what happens in your country everybody say that the American system that limit healthcare access to peoples by money is a bad thing face to the corona virus. Denying health care is denying the first freedom to the individual like the freedom to living. If peoples are not covered in pandemic time , it means that peoples will not be cured and will bring the virus while they are very contaminants. Private market is useless in this time of crises only public power have the will and the means to do something. You are so blind and dogmatic, that you don't realize that reality of this day disprove your lies. "shortsighted" this is the definition of private healthcare. Real public healthcare is about long term view, and not narrow view on the ego of the elites.
    1
  46.  @williamjewell6247  public institutions does not means government owning. In Nordic countries public health care is owned by municipalities. public healthcare give the best national healthcare in the world. Public healthcare is the only system who can't be short sighted (else if neo liberalism drive the politic) because it can plan, for future problems, like epidemic without being limited by private profit of the owners of the capital. All democratic countries allow universal health care ( and at low cost for peoples ) else ... the USA. All Western Europeans countries + Australia and New Zeland have better health care than the USA, who all have stronger universal healthcare. Then your claims are not founded on reality.
    1
  47.  @Karma-ml4tt  Nothing related to the subject. Nothing accurate. Facts show that universal public health care give better result. Then all that you can say about progressives is shit.
    1
  48.  @williamjewell6247  Well i don't know what you have in mind, but the US healthcare, is not really the model for healthcare in the world.The in the world public healthcare in most advanced countries are not dependents from private healthcare, of of private donors, doctors have a wage, etc.... Funding of public healthcare can be done by state, municipalities, taxes, delayed wage, etc.... If public healthcare give the best healthcares in the world, this is because they are not what you describe.
    1
  49.  @williamjewell6247  Public service, should be at the service of the public, and this is the duty of the state, or other collective institution , to allow peoples to get universal healthcare. This is how it works in most of the countries. Then i don't see where you want to go, but not how it works in democratic countries. Why? because it is at the service of the public, it allows universal healthcare, and then cover everybody, and not just the peoples who can pay private assurance and hospital. Then the global health level of the population is better. Health is not a question of choice, it is something needed for having a free life, and not being limited by disease, disability .. or death. This is why in democratic society they offer universal healthcare to all the individual. Health of individuals is more important than external drive like economic profit, in democratic societies, where the individual, the human is the drive of the society . Floor prices are made to allow peoples to get healthcare even if they are not riches Let those who need healthcare, to get healthcare. This is the base of free ( or low cost ) and universal healthcare in democracies. What matters is the point of view of everybody. And everybody need healthcare at a moment, then the end of your message is meaningless. When you see which countries do not have universal healthcare, we can see that you attack against universal healthcare is not for the defense of the freedom. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, some African countries , including the chaotic Somalia, this is not a list of free and healthy countries who do not allow universal healthcare. Then you don't understand what you are defending. It looks that you don't care about the freedom of the individual to get healthcare, because public healthcare allow universal healthcare, the healthcare for peoples who need it. Freedom to everybody to get healthcare, or exclusion of peoples from healthcare and health services, by price, religion, nationality, sex, etc... This is the real ideological antagonism. Democracies choose the first by allowing universal healthcare supported by public institutions. Peoples who do not care about the individual , and lock him in stereotypes, prejudices , etc...choose the second.
    1
  50.  @williamjewell6247  "that is not the purpose or job of the state" What is the purpose of a state is a question of ideology and politic applying this ideology : giving drive to the society, to the state. Drive by security and fear only , or in one concept reject of loss , is a right wing ideology, not a general drive for all ideological orientations . What you say was right in the antiquity and in the middle age, nice eras known for their great freedom of individual. A state driven by security and fear, does not defend individuals but Order. This is why in this societies, where state was just about security, there was slavery, no freedom of speech, etc... Oh and you don't know read what i say, because i speak about other collectives institutions, not just the state.... Public universal healthcare is about seeing everyone as individual,, and that all individual can need healthcare. Non universal healthcare do not see peoples as individual , but just purses on feet, or reduced to some categories like religion, nation, sex,, race, etc .... I speak about the countries who have and who don't have universal healthcare, then about facts not theory, and you do like if the most advanced democracies did not have universal healthcare. What you say is is not what says reality. Public universal healthcare give better coverage than non public non universal healthcare. Then i don't see what you try to defend. We don't care if riches peoples don't have more money than they already have. Health of individual is more important than big purses in the hand of the riches. Your position makes you anti individualist, you don't c are about the individual, you care just about the ego of the riches who want more money.
    1