Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+StevenCrowder Crowder
on climate change in the media and about the source of the consensus: you can't have an objective reality without numbers, and if the source of the numbers is naturally incorrect, then it's subject to question. when a question presents itself, it calls for an answer, biznizsch's. -- we need the truth on climate change. notice Crowder corrected himself, he said "not global warming" probably because this is different than climate change...global warming -- considering what some say, global warming is a natural effect of the climate. while climate change is whether he have anything to be truly alarmed about, which is what the media pushes. i want real answers: and scientists can be bought and paid for. this is a fact. PS: liberalism should stay out of the economy -- fiscal-conservatism is the only kind of conservatism that makes real sense. -- and liberalism should remain a social movement, in terms of LGBT rights, ect, as the people do indeed have the right to freedom of expression. sorry to disagree with you there Crowder (assuming you take just about every other Christian i've talked to's position -- [grammar, kids]), sorry to indirectly hammer that in, but i just don't see any other way to denote the problem i have with this particular area of disagreement, considering [yes admittedly anecdotal] my experiences with discussing the issue with Christians, and i'm in a Christian family myself. -- but i don't see how these people being whom they belief they are is any different from any Christian. fiscal-conservatism is the only kind of economy that makes real sense. (did i say that already?) but on the subject of Christianity, abortion is murder...lol, but i take the ethical "what if the baby is of a rape?" stance. because i can't really see anything being lawful in determining for a women whether or not she should have to keep a baby she simply doesn't want, by way of incident, or simply cannot handle -- why put more people on the streets, potentially? it's SUCH a complicated issue. PPS: apologies for the essay. but one more thing: if a woman does an illegal abortion, is it because there aren't enough resources for her to get it done by medical professionals? what happens to those women? it's complicated.
1
-
it's not a type of political conservatism? are you sure. it's a philosophy that frankly can be employed, and simply hasn't. raise the taxes on the wealthiest 1%-10%, let them pay their fair share.
liberals in office, plenty, will overspend on those strange new ideas, and they will certainly not always succeed. the thing is we do this too often. simple fact. no one wants to pay for things that only a sum few people wouldn't mind paying for themselves, and on a thing that is in all probability not going to be a simple return of investment, it will, in some cases, require more investiture, to make it profitable, which takes a huge chunk of money out of the economy, that doesn't get spit back out through revenue, it simply gets chewed up and swallowed, and the tax payer has to carry that burden. basically: sometimes, but not always, liberals screw up -- and fiscal conservatism just makes sense. you say it's a buzzword and that'd probably be accurate, i'm sure that conservative lobbyists and thinktanks like to prop up the party with certain misinformation -- but raising taxes on the wealthy is the best way to remain fiscally conservative (and no, not the political fiscal conservatism, but the just plain conservatism that comes with propping up the economy with the money conserved, the infrastructure built upon, and people given a shoulder to stand on to help build. it's too bad that is a dead and long gone way, to most of these fake neo-cons.
1
-
"But when stifling government spending is your entire point, I would say you're not really talking about politics -- and you don't fully understand how money works, because you'd realize government spending can only ever be a good thing"
LOL not if the tax payer has to pay for the spending that's being done that people don't want. the people make the rules, not the money. if we all could fix the tax burden on just the FED, that'd be disastrous, but surely by your logic, that'd be better, to just print as much money and spend as much as possible, right? or no...? you like some conservatism of $$$, right? or no? -- so what else can people do but just that, pay into the system that supports them...but if the system is not supporting them, they have good reason to not support that system -- no matter how much money it generates. it's basically the reverse of corporatism, the opposite, -- that's what you're advocating. PS: who said anything about wanting to stifle government spending? i'm talking about NOT stifling government spending.
1
-
i am not talking about saving it, that was a presumption on your part, but i commend your shrewdness. now, i say spend it, you didn't know that, but that's what i'm saying...spend it. but then you start saving and balance the books, after you inject that spending into the economy...now where it goes, people will widely differ on that issue. but where it goes is fundamentally the most important issue at that point -- and i'd say there is plenty of room for reform in many areas of the institution of public funds to government programs...education for example, is SORELY lacking -- i mean BAD; in terms of results, it's not terrible, but in terms of how it's run, it's terrible -- and that's just one area of concern.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1