PDA

View Full Version : Dec, 27: Even more TYT ROn Paul Videos




AlexMerced
12-27-2011, 11:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7M9eYHjCKQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z17hBEZpu2E

Chester Copperpot
12-27-2011, 11:22 PM
this guy is really clueless isnt he

AlexMerced
12-27-2011, 11:27 PM
Cenk? Yeah, he's extremley progressive, he saids he used to be republican but he probably never understood it cause I find myself spending a lot of time demolishing his arguments.

Although, he is fair, and it was nice that he gave Ron Paul another look with the 1988 video.

KingNothing
12-27-2011, 11:32 PM
Does he think that the Constitution is only the Bill of Rights?
Does he know the history of the income tax and the absurd crap that went down to get it passed?

Cenk is a nut. Why the heck does he think that the Constitution defines everything that CAN'T become law?

AlexMerced
12-27-2011, 11:38 PM
Does he think that the Constitution is only the Bill of Rights?
Does he know the history of the income tax and the absurd crap that went down to get it passed?

Cenk is a nut. Why the heck does he think that the Constitution defines everything that CAN'T become law?

From the beginning there has been this divide, I mean from the very beginning with Hamilton and Jefferson, who are the essence of two constitutional approaches one being for Broad and expansive the other narrow and defined.

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-27-2011, 11:41 PM
From the beginning there has been this divide, I mean from the very beginning with Hamilton and Jefferson, who are the essence of two constitutional approaches one being for Broad and expansive the other narrow and defined.

Put me in the camp who is anti-Constitution and would if given a choice between the two, want the Articles back. So, I'm aligned with George Mason, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, etc. etc.

I smell a rat.

Confederation of Republics > Nationalization / Centralization / Empire / Federalism

camp_steveo
12-27-2011, 11:42 PM
He had the Stormfront guy on there and the guy was actually educating Cenk. BTW, I am not a white supremisict. I can't even spell it...LOL

mport1
12-27-2011, 11:44 PM
His take on ending fiat money is hilarious. The man has no idea what he is talking about. Without FRNs we have to trade like cavemen?

Student Of Paulism
12-27-2011, 11:50 PM
Christ, so now is Cenk back on our side or what? Lol...I wish he would just gather all the facts first, or at least be a lil more objective and give the benefit of the doubt more, but other than that, i find him still worth listening to.

NewRightLibertarian
12-27-2011, 11:50 PM
His take on ending fiat money is hilarious. The man has no idea what he is talking about. Without FRNs we have to trade like cavemen?

The fat moron is a failed TV propagandist. I don't get why so many around here get roped in by these con men who give a compliment or two to Ron Paul. This guy will turn on us when the orders are given. I bet a lot of the Cenk lovers on here are also the types who are desperate for Paul to turn on the Alex Jones/PrisonPlanet crowd too

Student Of Paulism
12-28-2011, 12:08 AM
I am not that familiar with the 'Articles' or The Federalist Papers, but my take from what i read, is that the Constitution was based on them, no? So the divide seems to be that whatever was explicitly written in the constitution can never be stretched or changed, hence Cenk's rant. While i do understand this was over 200 years ago and that times change, and yes, laws, acts, amendments need to be added to keep up with society changing, it has to be done in a way where the underlying principles arent ignored or where things get bloated too much. I think the problem with all the social issues that government is so involved in today, is that its so overblown and doing more harm than good. Welfare, Education, School Loans, Medicare, etc. I mean, damn, its just a gargantuan mess right now and they have pretty much taken it all over. I dont see a problem with those institutions at all (the problem is how the government has handled it--BADLY), and yea, they are necessary, but they need to be streamlined and managed so you dont wind up crossing the line into the left, which we obviously have stepped over in leaps and bounds at this point, where it has led to flat out socialism.

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-28-2011, 12:29 AM
I am not that familiar with the 'Articles' or The Federalist Papers, but my take from what i read, is that the Constitution was based on them, no? So the divide seems to be that whatever was explicitly written in the constitution can never be stretched or changed, hence Cenk's rant. While i do understand this was over 200 years ago and that times change, and yes, laws, acts, amendments need to be added to keep up with society changing, it has to be done in a way where the underlying principles arent ignored or where things get bloated too much. I think the problem with all the social issues that government is so involved in today, is that its so overblown and doing more harm than good. Welfare, Education, School Loans, Medicare, etc. I mean, damn, its just a gargantuan mess right now and they have pretty much taken it all over. I dont see a problem with those institutions at all (the problem is how the government has handled it--BADLY), and yea, they are necessary, but they need to be streamlined and managed so you dont wind up crossing the line into the left, which we obviously have stepped over in leaps and bounds at this point, where it has led to flat out socialism.

The Articles of Confederation was the original form of these united States. The assembly in Philadelphia was to amend the Articles, not to throw them out. The assembly had no authority nor mandate to do such. In the AoC you needed unanimous consent (each States delegates) to get what little power available used. There was NO taxing authority. There was no standing army authority. It was truly a Confederation of Republics based on mutual goals and principles.

The Constitution was a COUP d' etat. It gave the Government tremendous amounts of more power, more centralization, and more authority, which meant less liberty, less prosperity, less republicanism. The Constitution was not based on the Articles. It was based on the ideas of Madison and Hamilton primarily. Ideas which were antithetical to the spirit and ideas of the Revolution. Hence why a large segment of the revolutionaries were against it, and almost killed it.

As far as the Constitution itself, Cenk is dead wrong. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal Government. If it isn't enumerated, then the Feds have no authority. That's the whole point of having such a document. It is stupid to have a document that lists all the things you can't do, when it is much simpler, and much more wise to list the things you can only do because god-forbid you have a transgression and forget to add something in the G-Men can't do. This is why a lot of people say the Bill of Rights is redundant and unnecessary and only causes confusion. I happen to agree.

It doesn't surprise me though because progressives are hideously rabidly Nationalist. Community empowerment? That's a slogan used to rope-a-dope the idiots who actually believe that balogne. Same goes with the States-Rights folks on the other side. None of the phonies believe it because they are died in the wool true blue NATIONALISTS. There can be no dissent. No diversity. No tolerance. The boot of the Nationalist-State is all that is allowed and it'll crush your windpipes even if you damn well don't want it.

This is why a lot of the New Lefties from the 60s are Paul supporters because a lot of them aren't Nationalists. They were the folks singing the praises for the Articles of Confederation. Those SDS types. Yeah, sure we have a lot of disagreements, but the one thing we can agree on which is paramount is that power and authority should be as divested and decentralized as possible which means reverting back to INDIVIDUAL liberty / empowerment. I can escape my city council. Not much escaping the Potomac, the IRS, the CIA, and the FBI.

Simple
12-28-2011, 12:47 AM
This argument is too common. Article I section 8 lists enumerated powers which is supposed to limit what Congress does and leaves all other powers to the People through the states. TYT incorrectly states that the general welfare clause allows Congress to provide for the general welfare, but it actually reads "promote the general welfare." His argument falls on its face because Social Security and Medicare are providing services not promoting general welfare.

While I understand how taxation violates the principle of property rights, it does come off pretty bad to say taxation is unconstitutional when there is a whole amendment on it.

JohnRego
12-28-2011, 01:50 AM
Sorry guys but I gotta go with Cenk on this one. The articles of confederation had in it that "all powers not expressly delegated in the constitution be relegated to the States". When somebody tried to introduce expressly back into the tenth ammendment, none other than James Madison got up to object.

Implied powers are clearly meant to be part of this constitution, something I hold against it, and makes me reserve my fondness only for the articles of confederation.

The anti federalists were correct in their criticisms. They saw the implied powers comming, and warned against it in their papers

economics102
12-28-2011, 02:00 AM
The most backwards thing Cenk says is that you'd have to be "crazy" to think the founders meant for the Constitution to limit the federal government to the enumerated powers.

If you start from the basic, plain fact that the Constitution is a CONTRACT (between the states). Cenk starts by citing the general welfare clause as why the federal government can do X, Y, and Z. Though we obviously disagree with that interpretation, even if we accept the argument for the moment, it still leaves Cenk in the illogical position of saying "even though I just cited an enumerated power in the Constitution to defend the federal government's authority to do X, Y, and Z, the notion that it matters whether powers are enumerated in the Constitution is CRAZY."

Yes, the bill of rights is mostly, if not completely, redundant (though I am undecided whether it was a net positive or negative to have it). But you know what part of the Bill of Rights is ESPECIALLY redundant? The tenth amendment.

What other contract have you ever heard of in which power or property is presumed to be ceded unless noted otherwise? What kind of a contract is that? If I make a contract to sell my car, it is PRESUMED BY DEFAULT that said sale contract does not also include my house, my stock portfolio, etc. THAT would be crazy.

If the states get their rights from their people, and the people have a contract authorizing the states to do X and Y but not Z, and the states in turn make a contract with each other creating and authorizing a central federal government to do X, why would you any more presume the federal government can do Y than you would presume that the states can do Z?

Cenk has stood up for Ron Paul on many many occasions even though he's not like mind so I'd like to give him a fair shake in return. I hope he reads up on this stuff though. There's nothing worse than seeing someone speak with such confidence and bravado while saying things that are so utterly, completely wrong.

A lot of progressives say the kind of stuff Cenk said disingenuously to make their arguments. To my mind that's the worst. Why not just say "yes, the founders didn't intend for the federal government to have the power to do things like provide health insurance. Doing so would clearly require a constitutional amendment. I argue we should do that." I can much more easily respect someone who says stuff like that.