Senator Scott Ryan championed a free vote on marriage equality, despite not holding a strong position on the issue. He engages in a heated debate with ...
Should Progressives Vote for Hillary? (w/ Shane Ryan)
Subscribe to The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow for more: //bit.ly/TheZeroHour If you liked this clip of The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow, please share it with your ...
Shane Ryan refers to Hillary as "centrist" and other dems as "left" ... if
progressives have this mindset, then Bernie is doomed and we will have the
first woman pres, a person who would sell her and anyone else's soul to get
there - woopie! Forget 15 usd minimum wage, Wall Street continuing its
criminal path, etc, etc
+Caveheaven Tulum Minimum wage, thanks to obama (IF the TPP/TIPA/SISPA, etc passes), will drive the minimum wage down to $.50/hour. hillary will be just as bad...
+Caveheaven Tulum Yes, I think Hillary is to the right of center but because of Bernie's popularity she has moved to the center were majority of the populous is but can you trust her? My analytics conclude that Bernie is the center inline with the populous. It's the media and the politicians that have moved to the right.
I will vote for her if she is the nominee. Because if a republican wins the
blood they spill the American the hurt will be on your hands as much as an
ignorant republican.
+ThisguyQuake Really? you don't know the Clintons. Bill has more than enough blood on his hands (Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc), as does Hillary (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya)...
Look, this video is fine, political correctness gone mad etc, I get it. But
thinking society as a whole is now overly sensitive (which is true to some
extent) is not an excuse for being a total douchebag. Thinking some people
complain too much about non-existent social injustices (which definitely
does happen) is not an excuse for ignoring or perpetrating real social
injustices. It's just a little worrying to me how many people seem to have
adopted the view that anyone who even attempts to bring up some form of
social injustice must be talking crap.
+Buffoon1980 Most of the time they are actually talking crap. With the exception of stuff like mass produced meat. But as far as gender stereotypes in videogames/movies etc, GMOs, etc. It's all bullshit that we actually defeated the right wing about years ago. Now regressives have taken those redundant opinions and we need to destroy them again >.<
+Buffoon1980It's not acceptable but they went on a whole rampage claiming the entire school was racist and crying for the Dean to quit. Which is ridiculous, Social justice at this day and age is just a bunch of whiners who want anything o complain about and to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
+FireTalon24 Okay, fair enough. I don't know anything about the situation you're describing so I won't comment. I just hope people are able (and willing) to judge each situation on its merits, or lack thereof. And I hope that, no matter the reaction, no one feels like using the word 'nigger' is in any way acceptable.
+Buffoon1980No, I'm not saying that there is NO injustice in the world. But for everyone to whine and bitch over EVERY little thing and make it a huge "social ordeal" is idiotic and foolish. Take those dumb bastards at Mizzou. The cunt in charge of the protest is the son of a millionaire and has the GALL to claim he's oppressed. All because one guy driving by in a pick up truck said "nigger". So yes, people need to grow the fuck up and stop crying over every little thing that hurts them.
+FireTalon24 So you're genuinely, honestly saying that any suggestion that social injustice exists in the world is inherently wrong? I find it bizarre that anyone could be so willingly deluded.
I went on a date with this really pretty girl like 2 months ago, she was
heaps cool until the topic of pets came up. She kept referencing her dog as
'it' like a strange amount of times so I wondered for whatever reason if it
was a boy dog or girl dog.
...She said it was gender neutral.
Most of the "SJW" post on tumblr are obvious trolls making sarcastic jokes
or highlights of the same 5 mentally challenges individuals that get
offended about everything. It's the biggest troll ever and you are falling
so epic for it.
+Arturo Rincon I say. Criticizing a movement which holds on to a sexist belief and to an invisible devil perpetuating that sexist belief resulting in perpetuating the belief which they have created in the first place IS really extreme.
+mike mikeson People are stupid indeed, but not as many as it seems to be, they are a rough minority. And people criticizing all the feminist movement as extremist feminism is simply arrogant and cringe worthy.
+Arturo Rincon What youre saying here might as well be "there is no such thing as black lives matter, its just a bunch of trolls and youre falling for it"Face it, people are stupid, you are stupid too.
Indeed but as long as people want to feel superior to others it'll never end.
Paul Ryan: Want Me To Be Speaker? Here's My List Of Demands...
The search for the next Speaker of the House has been a complete mess over the past few weeks. We had Kevin McCarthy up for it at one point but he was ...
+godonlyknows13 He has the douche look, like someone who'd be a dick, someone no one could tolerate being around because their such a fuck face.He'll make a great speaker in the party of the clowns LOL!
Paul Ryan Secures $17 Billion Giveaway To Banks
We're told that the Freedom Caucus fights for the average American, hates bank bailouts and crony capitalism. Obviously their champion Paul Ryan is going to ...
+choadkin No, no. The phrase "too big to fail" does not mean "it is impossible for it to fail because of its large size." The phrase is intended to mean, "this institution is so large that IF it fails, it destroys our economy and possibly the world economy." "Too big to fail" basically means "Succeed or BUST." These banks are so large that no matter how irresponsible they are, we cannot ALLOW them to fail, and we HAVE to bail them out no matter the cost to taxpayers, because the cost of NOT doing so would be far greater. For these reasons, we should BREAK THEM UP. Too big to fail is too big to exist.
Nothing is too big to fail. Many of the republican candidates claimed they would make the banks too big to fail. When I heard them say that, I thought, "oh okay, so they will do what Obama did and bail them out, they just won't come out and say it"
+The BlankMan1234 A bank's job is to store your money so you don't have to keep it on you and thus reduce your risk of being robbed, and to loan out money (car, house, or business). In this age of credit, it is absolutely imperative that we do not let big banks fail, for if we do, we could face a 1930s style great depression. Pray that a great depression, such as the depression of the 1930s, never happens in the USA again.
First of all, reducing oil taxes is great for average people, especially
those living in rural areas where the car literally the only way to get
around. Second, the $17B wasn't a bailout. The Fed pays an annual 6%
dividend to banks. If you don't know what a dividend payment is, then let
me briefly explain; when a company is doing well, it pays out cash to its
shareholders. The sum may depend on various factors, and perhaps the most
important one is whether or not the company believes the money earned will
be better off in the hands of the shareholders, i.e. its worth will rise
more quickly on the market than in the hands of the company. The big banks
are all member banks of the Federal Reserve, which means they own stock in
it. The Fed is different from other countries' central banks because it is
like a public-private-partnership. Having stock in the Federal Reserve
doesn't come with a lot of influence though, except for the fact that the
member banks elect six of the nine board members. The POTUS appoints the
Governor of the Fed. So in conclusion, the banks don't receive annual
bailouts. They receive annual 6% dividend payments that they will be able
to lend or invest in a way that is better for the economy that just having
the Fed sit on a big bag of money. Everything is in order.
+Strenif Strecs It's not entirely clear how bad things will actually get if we halted all CO2 emissions right now. We know the forcing level is already at a minimum of 1.8 degrees C according to the most conservative estimates. That alone will cause massive damage to agriculture, and a lot of attendant effects to numerous to mention - though there is some uncertainty as to scope and degree. These effects have a financial cost range in present dollars ranging anywhere from tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars. (It should be noted that the up to 2 degree C global temp rise has already begun, and already imposed costs of several hundred billion dollars globally).The question, however, is even more serious than this. Above a 2 degree C rise, we are talking about an extinction threat; and I mean to humans. So the issue is not halting emissions so things won't be as bad, we need to halt emissions to avert a climatological disaster which poses an existential threat to the human species.//thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/
+LTrotsky 21st CenturyCorrect me if I'm wrong but haven't we already past the point of no return on the whole climate thing? I mean, at this point aren't we just waiting for near half the population to be forced to migrate inland? Kicking off events that will be all sorts of bad?
+PERFECTIONlSMReduced corporate tax on sustainable energy. Sounds like a good idea. Most oil corporations already pay a net effective tax of zero; I wonder if you knew that. In fact, corporate taxes as a whole are less than 6% of the GDP, while corporate profits are at an all time high.What is the current tax credit or subsidy scheme for sustainable energy producers? Is it less than then net effective tax rate on the oil companies (which, to remind you, is already zero)?The "market" is not the solution here. If it was, something would already have been done about climate forcing. Nothing has been. The fossil fuel industry is producing a product which is immensely profitable only because the actual cost of using the product is not their responsibility under the laws they effectively write for themselves. The profit thus derived is given over to the political system in order to perpetuate the status quo (which is leading humanity off a cliff).A number of significant people, including Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates, have already recognized that the structure of the capitalist system offers no solution whatsoever to the issue of climate forcing.
+LTrotsky 21st Century Well, Goldman Sachs has an infrastructure fund that has raised ten billion dollars since 2006. All major investment firms have those.The financial cost of wiping out countries is immense. I'm totally with you on that, we need sensible climate reform worldwide. I do not see higher taxes on oil as a solution. It will strike rural areas and be devastating for the economy. Instead, I think there should be incentives for producing sustainable energy. For example, reduced corporate tax for solar cell producers or reduced taxes for people/investment firms that invest in sustainable energy. Capitalism is the answer. Soon, the prospective gains of using sustainable energy will be greater than those of fossil fuels. The market will adjust.
+PERFECTIONlSM Give me an example of a private company or financial house like Morgan Stanley "investing" in an airport, railroad, or bridge, please.Cost of a barrel of oil = the total cost of the barrel's extraction and use (the cost of the lease from the government, the materials and labor cost of extraction, the overhead, the cost of transport and refinery use, the cost of transport to sale, and the future cost of all ecological damage over time from CO2 injection into the atmosphere, per barrel - in the latter case for example what is the financial cost of wiping out the Maldives or forcing 40 million people out of Bangladesh?)
+LTrotsky 21st Century What are you talking about? Companies can invest in railroads, bridges, airports etc. It's very common. And oil barrels vary in cost depending on where they come from and what the supply and demand situation is like. Not sure what you're getting at.
+PERFECTIONlSM What do they actually do? How does a private company, for example, invest in infrastructure? What is the actual cost of a barrel of oil?
+LTrotsky 21st Century They can lend money to companies that want to invest in infrastructure, healthcare, education etc. or they can invest in those things themselves. Very lucrative fields, that generate a lot of tax dollars. It's a win-win-win for the companies, the government, and the people.