Peter Schiff owns Cornell West on Cooper Anderson 360

This is great. Cornell West tries to explain a lot of things in this clip, relative to what the government must do for us, only to hit the wall of reality that is Peter Schiff. Of course West won’t accept any of it, and tries to maintain that Schiff is wrong, but nobody is buying it. Reason TV highlights this one quote from Schiff:

“If they really want a bright future for this country, it’s capitalism that will provide it, not government.”

P.S. Yes, I know how to spell Anderson Cooper 360. I got that from Ann Coulter.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

122 thoughts on “Peter Schiff owns Cornell West on Cooper Anderson 360

  1. “Eat the rich” + “We don’t hate any individual” = contradiction.

    Love the way West keeps rocking back and forth. I keep thinking he’s about to start chanting – “ommmmm, ommmm, ommmm”.

    The basic problem is that liars lie and fools believe and most of us just want to get on with our lives, not waste time in an interminable argument with some Lefty who will not admit truth even AFTER hell freezes over. West is an excellent example of a pathological liar.

    1. Actually, Glenn Beck was the one that said eat the rich pal. The OWS movement hates no one. Glenn Beck is an absolute loon not to mention stupid. You are right about one thing. Liars do lie and fools do believe but you lost me on this truth you want him to admit. Exactly what truth is that? If there was a phrase or term to describe Cornell West, pathological liar would not be it. Brilliant mind yes. I would say Glenn Beck fits the pathological liar mold much better and easier than West.

      1. “The OWS movement hates no one.” I would say wait until they gain power, but I think the outright communists who are moving in on OWS will gain control of OWS, and if you’re familiar with history, you know that communism is responsible for the largest death tolls in history. But I’m confident that the “real” OWS would morph rapidly into open expression of hatred if they once got power. The reason being that the “rich” (definition gets less $$ every month, it seems) don’t want to give up their millions, especially to those who do no useful labor.

        What truth was I talking about? Truth in general. there’s a verse in the Bible which says that God will send some people a “strong delusion, so that they will believe the lie.” I used to wonder like you – which lie? This year I realized what it means – ANY AND ALL lies.

        I don’t pay much attention to Glenn Beck, but I see “Eat the Rich” signs being carried by OWSers, not Glenn Beck. I’m sure if I took the trouble to chase it down, I would find that Beck used the phrase as a description of what the Left wants to do (economically, not gastronomically).

        If West is a brilliant mind, he does an outstanding job of hiding it.

        1. All I read is quaking fear, insults and contempt for anyone that is not you or anyone that thinks (key word there) differently than you in your posts. Still, you have failed to produce a single shred of solitary proof to butress your ridiculousness, only fear. I dont know why I didnt see the communism thing coming. Let me ask you something precious…what is the difference between the OWS movement and the original Boston Tea Party let alone the American Revolution? Were they communists too for standing up? Was Jefferson a communist for writing the Declaration? By your standards grounded in fear, they are. Every last one of the founding fathers is a communist because they dared speak out in protest to the Crown. By your standards, the original Tea Partiers were communists for protesting and taking their frustrations out upon the East India Company for the taxes imposed by the Crown through the Tea Act. By your standard, what makes America, America is communist, right? That serves as proof to me that you are an absolute fool. You have no earthly idea what real communism is and I think you should take a read of Marx’s Communist Manifesto before you buy into the examples of corruptive communism that befell Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. Maybe then you’ll actually see that on paper Communism works as an economic system and that Capitalism is not the only viable one. It only failed to work once lesser men corrupted it. And because I feel like I need to say it, that is not an endorsement of Communism, only a slight explanation of my counterpoint to yours.

          1. There are so many extremely foolish statements in your reply that I’d have to spend a couple of hours responding. I don’t have the time, especially because I think in your case it is willful.

            “on paper Communism works”

            “It only failed to work once lesser men corrupted it.”

            Any economic system has to work with “lesser men” because, apparently, the world is full of “lesser men”. (Wow, who are we calling “greater men” here, the biggest butchers in history, Mao and Marx?) You might as well say, “If people were perfect communism would work.” And I’m not sure it would even then.

            You’re actually pointed in the right direction with your remark about “lesser men”.

            Both capitalism and communism suffer from the same flaw. Communism descends into failure faster and, at the beginning, more violently. But the flaw is not in either of the political systems. It’s in the human being.

            The flaw is what the Bible calls “sin”. The remedy is for people to become believers in and disciples of Jesus Christ. Not just religious, you understand, I mean disciples – that is, one who follows the discipline of a certain leader. In the case of Christian faith, this involves a spiritual rebirth that God causes in a believer’s life when he / she becomes a believer, and another process called sanctification, which is the change of character that takes place in a believer’s life over the entire course of his / her life due to the influence of the Holy Spirit. According to the Bible, that is what it takes to make us genuinely good people. Again according to Scripture, there is no substitute for this process. That is why, when a nation or a person turns away from the God of the Bible, a detrimental change in the nation’s or person’s moral character begins to occur. No political or economic system can prevent or even, from a historical point of view, long delay this process. That’s what is the underlying cause of all the problems America faces – the moral standard has been abandoned, and God has abandoned us. See Romans chapter 1:18-32.

      2. Um, “eat the rich” is an expression that has been around for centuries. In 1999 P. J. O’Rourke, the token conservative at Rolling Stone magazine, wrote a book named “Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics.” In it he asks the question: “Why do some places prosper and thrive, while others just suck?” A really enlightening, well researched and downright funny book.

  2. I can’t imagine sending my child to Princeton U. knowing they would be subjected to the blathering of this fool with a head full of ten cent ideas and a mouth full of ten dollar words. He reminds me of The Kingfish from the Amos and Andy shows on radio and tv in my childhood, always talking chicken salad while serving up chicken $hit.

    1. I doubt your child would be intellectually qualified to even set a foot on the lawn at Princeton if their parents are any sort of leading indicator.

  3. Peter Schiff is a historical revisionist trying to recreate events of the 20s, 30s, and 40s to fit the BS he’s been paid to kick out. West is citing historical record of events while Schiff is claiming them to be liberal propaganda? Truth is truth and is never liberal nor conservative. When conservatives learn that, they will begin to firmly grip reality.

    1. The historical revisionism is the liberal view of the how the great depression happened and how it ended. Liberals think that FDR ended the great depression by stimulating the economy – but the truth is that the market would have corrected itself naturally (as markets do) and would have done it a lot quicker if it wasn’t for said stimulus. The reason for this is that government stimulus firstly takes money from the private sector which would have otherwise been used productively, and then the government uses it unproductively. Whenever governments spends a dollar, it never gets more than a dollar back; only the private sector can create wealth (ie. more than a dollar back), because only the private sector has the right motivation to accomplish it, eg. The profit motive.

      Also, the claim that WW2 was good for the economy, which is often perpetuated by Paul Krugman and others, is so incredibly false. Firstly, the war was a massive hit on the economy, it dragged for years because of it, and it was only when the war ended that the economy actually started to grow again, but it only grew because all the soldiers got brought back home and could work in productive employment, rather than unproductive employment in the military, and there was no more burden on the economy because of the ending of the war efforts, and people could get back to actually being productive and pursuing profits. Krugman and other liberals have got it all wrong.

      I’ve probably only given the tip of the iceberg on how wrong liberals have it all, but that’s quite the norm with them.

      Furthermore, if you want to debate Peter Schiff, then call up his radio show and debate him about this. I listen to all his shows, so I’ll hear if you do. His show’s website is

      1. You know Kordane, I keep hearing from all this monday morning quarterbacking of what free markets could have done but not one of you can ever point to an example where Uncle Milty Freeman’s free market scam actually worked or was applied. The markets would have done this or that is not proof of anything real or factual. It is only theory. In theory, I could beat Mike Tyson too if and until I got into the ring. Only after I have actually beaten Mike Tyson could I claim and have evidence to point to success from execution of that theory. We’ve lived with this supply side economy for the last 10 years. Hell, the last 30 years. There is empirical data that shows these tax scams do not work. They have never worked for the greater good and have done nothing but benefit the wealthy at the top. I keep hearing the warning not to raise taxes on the job creators. Small business owners, the real job creators make about $250,000 or less and many of them are going out of business because they have no customers. Why? Because their customers are broke because they dont have a job to come in and buy the goods or services they would provide. A progressive tax structure has always worked in this country and worked well until Saint Reagan came along and played with the tax brackets. You and your free marketeers have no data, no proof that what you say in theory would have worked as you think it would have. I can however point to economic data from the that shows that actions taken by Roosevelt did work and got us out of the Depression and that in raising taxes for the war effort in WWII kept the economy going as production shifted to support the war machine. Peter Schiff is a guy who makes money on money and nonsensical theoretical commentary. He offers no goods, no services and makes nothing for public consumption other than a few books filled with nonsense. How he is a job creator and how you’ve deluded yourself to believe he is one I will never know. One thing is for certain, he’s convinced you that what he and the others at the top have done to this economy arent the problem when in fact they are. Thats what’s dangerous here. He was right about one thing as was Dr. West, Washington is to blame for creating the laws that created the environment for this kind of operating behavior to occur but West goes further to point out that Wall Street lobbyists imposed their influence on Washington first. The chicken or the egg? The only way out of this is to drop kick the money out of our political system, period. The Democrats tried with McCain-Fiengold until the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United. They then tried with the Disclose Act which would have disclosed where PACs donating to campaigns got their money from only to see it filibustered in the Senate by Republicans. That is part of why the Occupy movement has taken hold and grown as it has. People are broke, frustrated and tired of the revolving door and the money that breeds influence, lies, and deception to get votes every election. Its gotta stop and its gotta stop now.

        1. You know BlackRonin, there is no “free market scam”, except the one perpetuated by liberals, in which they attempt to argue that a “mixed economy” (which is what we have now) is a “free market”.

          A free market is a market “free from government” as in a complete separation of state and economy. Tell me, when was the last time that America had that?

          America hasn’t had a “free market”, but it came the closest to achieving it, and the extent to which it was free, was the extent to which it was prosperous. The reason why America has become less prosperous in recent times is the extent to which the market has become unfree, given the mountains of regulations, nationalizations and other controls over the market, particularly under the Obama administration.

          The truth is there is no free market and there never has been, but your liberal friends will continue to perpetuate the myth that “the free market has failed”, even though what they are speaking about is actually far from a free market, and the “failure” is actually much closer to their ideal economic system – which is why it is a failure.

          So in regards to your claim about a “free market scam”, I would ask you to check your premises.

          You spoke about a lot of things, but rather than me reply to every one in a super long single post, I’ll just deal with them one by one. You may reply to this one, if you want to continue.

          1. Actually Kordane, yes there is a free market scam and it is you the marketeers who have perpetuated it upon us all as a society in our discourse. Again, you have no evidence, no data, no case in the world to point to that supports your free market theory. Yet, you delude yourself into thinking its what works and will only work. Your claims that the Obama Administration has created all these numerous regulations is also false. I want you to name those intrusive regulations for me and explain how they have stifled job creation. I already know which ones you’re going to try to claim but for sh!ts and giggles, I’ll let you make your own noose. I remember back in the 90s that you marketeers were crying about the exact same BS yet we still had prosperous economic growth with those same regulations, same EPA, etc. I do recall Bush eliminating or softening Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton era regulations after the coup of 2000. So what was different in the 90s as compared to present day? Oh thats right, no wars of choice costing us $2 Trillion, no prescription drug bill that was unpaid for and no economically stupid tax cuts that gut the treasury blowing a hole in tax revenues for the next decade that benefit the wealthy at the top. Economic prosperity with regulations and the Clinton era tax rates. Economic collapse from the Bush tax cuts, wars, and medicare part D. You guys have been wrong about EVERYTHING. I also don’t recall economic stimulus being a dirty word when Bush and the Republican led 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses sent us all $300 and $600 checks FOR…(dramatic pause) ECONOMIC STIMULUS! Now that Obama wants to stimulate the economy by way of eliminating the Bush tax cuts, employment payroll tax cuts, the savings of ending the wars, and creation of infrastructure projects to rebuild OUR nation using policy that has worked, PROVEN by FDR and the New Deal era programs like the WPA and Eisenhower with the Interstate Highway project of the 50s, thats a problem? To quote Denzel from Training Day, its not what you know, its what you can prove. You can’t prove your free market scam works or point to a nation where it has worked to prosperous ends for that nation. Come off it man!

            1. You’re asking me for evidence of something which is self-evident. A free market is a market free from government. There is no basis for claiming that the United States is a free market, or historical basis for it ever having had a free market.

              The “scam” is therefore clearly coming from those who claim that a free market is what the United States has, or has had at some point in time.

              As for government controls/regulations on the “unfree market”, I suggest you start by reading through the “Federal Register” website –

              Alternatively, read through –

              Quote: “Economic prosperity with regulations and the Clinton era tax rates. Economic collapse from the Bush tax cuts, wars, and medicare part D”

              Heritage have thoroughly refuted that claim, See here:

              Quote: “Now that Obama wants to stimulate the economy by way of eliminating the Bush tax cuts, employment payroll tax cuts, the savings of ending the wars, and creation of infrastructure projects to rebuild OUR nation using policy that has worked, PROVEN by FDR and the New Deal era programs like the WPA and Eisenhower with the Interstate Highway project of the 50s, thats a problem”

              If eliminating tax cuts is “stimulative”, then why stop at eliminating the Bush tax cuts? If it’s “stimulative” to take more money from people, and then use it for “infrastructure spending” then it would make sense for the government to tax/seize 100% of ALL the wealth that people own/earn, and then the government can spend it on a crapload of “infrastructure projects”. Why, we’ll have bullet trains to EVERY living room! Bridges over EVERY water source, including ponds and puddles!

              All that FDR proved is how wasteful it is to employ people to dig a hole and then fill it back in again with his “make work” jobs.

              Infrastructure is a luxury item that consumes wealth, with only the hope that the infrastructure will be used by people to actually “create wealth”. Infrastructure does not create wealth, it only consumes it. The money which you and the libs intend to fund that infrastructure, comes from the very people you intend to use that infrastructure to one day create wealth on it – But tell me, how do they create wealth when you have taken it already to build infrastructure? Oh, you say, you won’t take “all” of it; you’ll leave “some” for people to create wealth with. The trouble is though, people will just leave before you can collect that wealth, or they just won’t bother creating wealth afterwards because they’ll just retire, or you’ll have taken too much and they won’t have the capital to create wealth in the first place.

              Of course, the flaw is that nobody wants to live as a slave. The more that liberals control the market, the less that people will want to work in the market, until they eventually stop working altogether, and then liberals bring out the whips and guns, because that’s where it always ends when force is the standard. I just hope that enough people flee to freer countries, before they’re thrown into communist labour camps and other such hell holes.

              1. Kordane, you cannot be serious. Infrastructure is a luxury that consumes wealth not builds it? Really? I’m sorry but last I knew power plants used everything from dams to power transmission lines to deliver power and divert water to various areas of the country that at one time had none, namely the west. The river the Colorado. My God man how ignorant are you of your nation’s history and how it came to be? The infrastructure we inherited thanks to FDR and the New Deal has been around for years, channeling water, delivering safe drinking water, generating electricity, roads to move goods to market, etc all thanks to the Works Progress Administration. For you to reduce a truly magnificent program that truly lifted the spirits of a nation on the ropes to the simplicity of busy work digging a hole and filling it up smacks of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. I wanted to call you something else but I’m trying to be polite to you for buying into the ridiculousness that the WPA was a hole digging and filling program. The next time you take a drink of water, thank the WPA. The next time you flip a light switch, thank the WPA. The next time you flush the toilet, thank the WPA. The next time you drive down a road, cross a bridge or go into a building check the cornerstone. It might have been built in the 30s or 40s. THEN again thank the WPA for retrofitting or building it. How about you actually do some research on the WPA and the entirety of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Instead of buying into the BS that further reduces your IQ to that of a grape nut that is Fox News, the Heritage (Koch brainsmelting) Foundation, and Conservative BS propoganda (because I know exactly where you got that whole digging thing from, I used to listen to that lying bastard’s show too), maybe just maybe you’ll learn and understand how THIS country became great and avoided the complete collapse it was headed for then, just like the one we are heading for now because of Republican idiots in Congress and many of their equally idiotic voters. Our grandparents and great grandparents as Americans built this nation with their blood, sweat, tears and ingenuity creating what people like yourself take for granted. This stuff didnt just magically appear here and it will not last forever. It has to be refitted, rebuild and reengineered to last another 80-100 years. How about this, go to a nursing home and talk to some of the residents there. They were the people who worked in the WPA, the CCC and the NYA and fought in WWII. Better yet, read about it yourself with the links I’ve included below. I’m done arguing with ignorant fools. I pity you because you know nothing of your nation’s history while claiming liberals like myself are the cause of its destruction. My poor pitiful fool of a friend, all you need do is look in the mirror and you will find the villain helping to destroy, dismantle and inhibit, his own country.

       (This is an article in the New York Times dated Jan. 4, 1935 on the creation of the WPA)
       (There is a link to an interactive timeline on the WPA. Check it out.

                I have given you six links one of which is a NY Times story from 1935. Take a look or not, its your choice to be a fool denying history in favor of bull or not to be one. As I said, I’m done with it. I’ve got no more time to waste on foolishness.

                1. Quote: “Infrastructure is a luxury that consumes wealth not builds it? Really? I’m sorry but last I knew power plants used everything from dams to power transmission lines to deliver power and divert water to various areas of the country that at one time had none, namely the west”

                  Firstly, I don’t accept that “infrastructure spending” is a proper role of the government. The founders made it very clear that the government’s role is to protect individual rights, and that’s all.

                  If any infrastructure was to be created, then the founders clearly envisioned it being created by private individuals pursuing their happiness.

                  The fact that we even speak about the government building dams, roads, bridges and so forth, is indicative of how far the United States have fallen from the founders’ original vision.

                  But yes, infrastructure is a luxury item. If you want bullet trains going all over the place, bridges over every river, and roads to every destination, then you have to be productive enough to be able to afford it, because if you aren’t then you don’t deserve all of it.

                  Yes, infrastructure “may” help private individuals to create wealth, but that’s a long way from saying that infrastructure creates wealth. Furthermore, it may be the case that some infrastructure spending actually results in a “net loss” after a cost-benefit analysis is run. For example, if the government spends tens of millions of dollars on a bridge, but it only turns out to have helped people create a few thousand dollars of wealth from its use, then clearly the bridge is a big bloody waste of money.

                  A cost benefit analysis is very rarely ever done with your beloved “infrastructure spending”. It is just assumed that “infrastructure spending = more wealth”, and so the government just throws (taxpayers’) money out there, blindly hoping that it will result in a net gain in wealth.

                  I would argue that entrusting the government with infrastructure spending is utterly foolish since the government lacks the right incentives (eg. the profit motive) to make it an economically worthwhile endeavour, and the government almost never considers the unintended consequences of their actions. Government often acts like a charity when it engages in infrastructure spending; charities aren’t in it to ‘profit’ after all. The moral hazard is clear though, since it’s not ‘their’ money to be charitable with; it belongs to taxpayers who want to see a decent return on their money.

                  The private sector, on the other hand, has the right sort of incentives (eg. the profit motive / the pursuit of happiness) to make infrastructure spending as efficient and profitable as possible, and they will fear lawsuits if they cause harm by their actions, so there’s an additional incentive to consider as many of the consequences of their actions as possible.

                  See how much text I needed, just to refute one of your paragraphs?

                  We’ll have to do this piecemeal.

                2. Kordane, you dont have to accept that infrastructure is the proper role of government. You dont have to but you’d be wrong. All you gotta do is read the Constitution, the ENTIRE Constitution at a college level and not that of a 6th grader on ritalin. Its very clear in the Preamble of the Constitution that it grants government (aka the people) the power build a more perfect union and provide for the build up of the nation under general welfare clause to “insure domestic tranquility” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” meaning themselves and future generations to come. Meaning that they intended for future generations to build a better nation than the previous one. The New Deal was one generation’s effort to build a better nation where ours have done nothing but tear it down and run out the clock on it while Republicans stupidly hinder the planning and execution to replace it to keep it going.

                  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                3. Quote: “Its very clear in the Preamble of the Constitution that it grants government (aka the people) the power build a more perfect union and provide for the build up of the nation under general welfare clause”

                  The general welfare clause is just an introductory statement. It isn’t meant to give the government plenary powers to violate the limitations imposed by the constitution upon the federal government.

                  That’s just the left has distorted it. The left thinks that it gives them plenary powers to do ANYTHING they want, because it may be argued that “doing anything can be for the general welfare”…

                  But the fact is that it speaks about “the general welfare”; not the welfare of particular groups of people, or individuals. The general welfare must apply, by very definition, to everyone. This means things like national defence, the police, and the judiciary – which benefit and apply to everyone. Stuff that you’ve gone on about, such as the WPA, only benefit and apply to ‘some’ people (at the expense of others), therefore it’s not general; it’s for the welfare of a specific group of people.

                  The problem is that the left has taken that one introductory statement and used it as a justification for making the role of government ‘infinite’ in scope.

                  Sorry to break this to you, but you’ve been misled by the left into thinking that the constitution’s preamble basically nullifies all the limitations on the federal government that are imposed upon it in the rest of the constitution. That’s the truth. You can go look it up. The founding fathers didn’t speak about all the limitations they wanted for government, just so that a mere introductory statement in the constitution could be used to violate every single limitation they intended for it.

                  You can bring up the commerce clause too, if you want. I’ll shoot that one down for you too.

                4. Didnt you get the hint of my last message. Let me make it clearer. I’m done debating dumbass fools. I pity fools like you because your contempt for facts, truth or any other thought outside your ideological prison arrests your understand of your own nation’s history. Fox News, Limbaugh and the Kochs really did a job on you. When you’re ready to come out of the fog of misinformation and delusion, I’d be more than happy to discuss things with you. So far, you’ve offered nothing but contempt and ignorance for historical record and the Charters of Freedom, namely the Constitution. I’d like to suggest the Federalist debates and the Anti-Federalist debates. Here’s the links to them on Amazon:



                5. I know you’re beaten, but I will conclude with the following:

                  You argue that the general welfare clause gives government unlimited plenary powers, in total contradiction of the rest of the constitution, in total contradiction to everything the founders said about limiting government, and in total contradiction with the declaration of independence.

                  If you had read either of those papers (anti-federalist and federalist), then you would know that the founders wanted to STRICTLY limit government – NOT give government unlimited plenary powers to do anything it wanted, just like is found in Communist dictatorships.

                  You want the government to have unlimited plenary powers. You don’t want a constitutionally limited government, because it’s contrary to your agenda which is to establish absolute control over everything, with a top-down centralised government, just like Communist Russia. You know that you have to lie about the constitution, to destroy the constitution and free yourself from its chains.

                  Don’t hide from the truth; be proud of your desire to enslave humanity.

                  The game is up, brother. We’re onto you.

                6. That’s basically it, yes. But what I found most interesting was how BlackRonin starts off by implying that the general welfare clause gives the government the power to do anything – Even though if it did, then it would abrogate the rest of the constitution – And then he has the audacity to lambast ME for having “contempt and ignorance for historical record and the Charters of Freedom, namely the Constitution”, as if he’s some kind of champion for the constitution.

                7. Jason, Kordane is wrong, plain and simple. I never said the general welfare clause allows the government to do whatever it wants. To answer your question, the Preamble was just the stated purpose for the creation of a centralized federal government. The rest of the document fleshed it out creating the separate co-equal branches of government each with its own purpose for governing. The two biggest reasons the Articles of Confederation failed is because there was no centralized government to create laws, collect taxes and allowed for the states to go to war with themselves. Essentially, under the Articles, each state was its own nation. It was that failing that created regulation of Interstate Commerce in the constitution. Think if the United States were Europe before World War I and what happened after the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. In creation of the government under the constitution, they still gave the states the right to conduct business amongst themselves, create laws, taxes, and etc by way of the 10th Amendment. However, in specific cases, the Supremacy Clause states that federal law trumps state law.

                  As I’d said previously, in order to understand the constitution you have to read it in it entirety at a level beyond the 6th grade understanding that far too many people have of it.

                8. Quote: “I never said the general welfare clause allows the government to do whatever it wants”

                  It was implied in your claim that the general welfare clause gives the government “the power build a more perfect union and provide for the build up of the nation” in regards to the works progress administration and other infrastructure spending that we were discussing at the time. You fell back on the general welfare clause as your justification, even though you’re wrong about its usage and meaning.

                  Really, your claim is so arbitrary that it has no limits to it. The constitution is supposed to strictly and severely limit the government – Not allow it to take money from the people to spend on whatever the hell it wants, so long as politicians and bureaucrats claim to be doing it to “build a more perfect union” or “build up the nation”.

                  The only things that would be justified by such a statement are spending on the army, police and court system, as instruments for protecting individual rights.

                9. Kordane, you do understand that there was a reason the Articles of Confederation failed miserably right? Everything you’ve argued for in this thread is in support of a failed and rejected system of government. I know Somalia, is a country without a government. How about you go over there, and try all this BS there? See if free markets, unlimited guns, no regulations and no taxes builds that nation to prosper economically. GOOD LUCK! And make sure your gun rights are bigger than the other guy’s gun rights. TA!

                10. I’ve argued for constitutionally limited government, where the government’s sole responsibility is to protect individual rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness), and that it does this by using the army, police and court system.

                  Somalia is not like this, and it’s absurd to claim that it is.

                11. No, you failed to argue for constitutionally limited government. You also failed to present a single case where the free market scam works to the end of economic prosperity which is what started this discussion. If you actually read my post and thought about what I wrote, I never claimed Somalia had a constitution let alone a functional government. Why must you continue to put words in my mouth when I clearly make none of the claims you say I have. Your shortsightedness on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness also know no end as those ideals are not limited to your ideas of them. If we as a nation had to live by your idea of life, liberty and happiness, we’d be North Korea. So long as we’ve acheived a level of happiness Kordane sees fit, we need not exceed that. The Posterity clause demands we continue to build a better nation to ensure that happiness spreads.

                12. Again you make the claim of a “free market scam”, even though there has NEVER been a free market in the entire history of Mankind, and the closest that any country got (The United States) saw a massive growth in prosperity, technological and scientific innovation, and increase in the standard of living and quality of life. The only reason why this doesn’t continue to this day is because the United States has become “progressively” less free; the closer it gets to Communism (absolute control) the closer it comes to total economic failure.

                  Quote: “If we as a nation had to live by your idea of life, liberty and happiness, we’d be North Korea”

                  Um, no. We’d become the complete opposite. I would argue that it is the totalitarian ideas espoused by yourself, in advocating an “unlimited government”, that you get the labour/death camps of Communist states such as North Korea. That is the ultimate goal of the policies which you and the left advocate, whether you let yourself believe it or not. I think the left does a good job of lying to itself about its ultimate goal, and you are no different in that.

                  Quote: “The Posterity clause demands we continue to build a better nation to ensure that happiness spreads”

                  “Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, and I take “posterity” to simply mean “future generations”. It makes sense.

                  However, your interpretation contradicts the individual right to the pursuit of happiness, since we are not granted a right TO happiness (which others would necessarily have to provide), but are only granted the right to the PURSUIT of happiness. Rights are to “freedoms of action”, not to goods or services which others would necessarily have to provide. This is a fundamental lesson which you and the left (in general) need to learn.

                  So far, you’ve got the “general welfare” WRONG and now “posterity” WRONG.

                  What other attempts will you make to corrupt the preamble just so that you can justify your statist desire for “unlimited government”??

                13. BlackRonin, I read through all of these posts as I found the discussion interesting…right up to the point where you started calling people names and attacking them personally. That is where you lost me. That just shows me that you cannot support or justify your position and you therefore have ceded victory in the debate.

                14. Well Jason Newman, I’m sorry you feel that way. The fact you consider this a discussion that requires a winner and a loser tells me more about your perspective of debate. This discussion was not about my winning or his losing or vice versa. I tried to be polite and yes I did go about calling Kordane and others subscribing to his woefully bizzard philosophy a fool or to be accurate a “dumbass fool.” Truth be told, I do think that anyone seeking to ignore proven historical events and data supporting and proving something beyond any doubt an absolute fool. Since the day the Mayflower landed, and even before building infrastructure or working the land to the benefit of all has spurred economic growth be it by way of growing food and creation of products and rendering of services for barter and trade for consumption. It took people to cultivate, produce and distribute them and create ways to distribute them be it a riding path or a road that was cut out of the wilderness to move about the colonies. The point I was trying to make to Kordane was that to minimize infrastructure as a luxury item that does not produce wealth is ludicrous as the evidence slaps us all in the face proving the contrary. Infrastructure is not the same as a Ferrari or a Porsche as his argument likens it to be. After the American Revolution, American people went about building a nation which spurred economic growth in housing, farming, carpentry, and markets which in turn encouraged the pursuit of liberty and happiness. Jefferson lobbied for the Louisiana Purchase as a way of expanding the nation not simply to expand the territory of the United States but to seize upon the economic and national security benefits of the Mississippi River Delta and all economic benefit of trade up and down the Mississippi River. After the Civil War during Reconstruction, the same activity was encouraged as the West was explored tamed and built upon. Then as we came into the Depression of the 20s and 30s, putting people to work to again to rebuild and improve the nation with new and improved infrastructure made the nation what it is today. Since the days of the WPA, we have done nothing to replenish, improve or refit that infrastructure which is now crumbling. If we dont have bridges, roads, electricity delivery systems, sewer and drainage systems, with the addition of cellular and broadband infrastructure as well as new forms of energy beyond coal, oil and gas, our nation fails to work, not to mention falls behind others in the world. Goods cannot get to market on those trucks you see on the nation’s highways, services cannot be rendered to the people that need them and businesses falter and close up. Day in and day out every corporation uses the infrastructure previous generations built decades, even centuries ago to do business. If that stops, ALL economic activity slows to a crawl if not stops all together and transportation of those goods become costly, not to mention complicated because of added measures necessary to go around bridges or roads that are impassable. That backbone must be respected and maintained at all costs. That is why it is so critical that Pres. Obama’s American Jobs Bill be passed and put into action right away. The problem with Kordane’s failure is his shortsightedness in seeing how interconnected all of those things are to our nation’s economy. Its one thing to preach “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” from an armchair but failing to understand and acknowledge that life, liberty and happiness comes from our economic growth and prosperity through the functional upkeep of that chain and keeping it going while denying historical evidence proving his philosophy obsurd does indeed make him a fool. A very big one.

  4. The trouble is he is listened to in the colleges, actually looked up to as someone who has correct wisdom!!

  5. Hilarious, Mr. West doesn’t read history or economics, but he writes books. They must be fairy tales. Fictions he feeds to children. Schiff has him Soooo covered on these issues. Thanks for the post Right Scoop.

  6. It’s always great fun to watch someone with nearly no real world experience debate someone with a wealth of real world experience. Cornell West knows nothing except that which he has read through the progressive, socialist lens. Peter in addition to what he has read as the experience of what he has done in the real world.

    Peter’s explanation of the credit crash, although not complete because of the time constraints, was dead on. Because banks were prodded and coerced into making loans to higher risk individuals they came up with a way to get those loans off their books. Poof! Mortgage Backed Securities were created. At the same time the Fed had interest rates so low that many big money investors were forced to take some risk on their money in order to get any rate of return. The mortgage backed securities were then insured by IGA and others blessed them with a AAA rating.

    Now it gets nasty. The big money investors that have been driven out of the boring CD investment strategies by the FED’s suppressed interest rates begin to clamor for these mortgage investments. Give us more they cried, we will buy all you have. They could now get many times the rate of return they would get on a CD using a AAA insured investment. One problem, the banks are running out of qualified buyers. Well you need mortgages to create mortgage backed securities, so what to do? Lower the standards. I mean that’s what the government wanted them to do anyway right? Now the banks are packaging up mortgage backed securities with higher and higher amounts of riskier and riskier loans. Everybody is happy. The high risk homeowner gets his loan, the bank gets its fee and moves the loans off its sheets to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or some investor looking for better that 2% on his money, the government gets more home ownership, life is good.

    Then housing goes south. Then the defaults start to mount. Then the insurance companies start to groan. Then the investment banks start to go under. Then counter-party risk goes through the roof. Then bank to bank lending stops.

    There is more to it than this but this is a good skeleton of what happened. My point is that at each and every step of the way you can point at a government policy that is at the root. Community Reinvestment Act, Federal Reserve interest rates, repeal of Glass-Seagal(spell ??), any of these things by themselves could not be responsible but together they are. Government sets the environment within which business tries to make money. They are going to find a way to make money. That’s what they do! You can’t blame the mouse for taking what you think is the wrong route to the cheese when you are the one that built the maze.

  7. Mr. West please stick to social issues and stay the hell out of economics and anything related to it because you have no concept of basic economics and the free marketplace. Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Fed has always falsely believed that their responsibilities extended far and beyond the “lender of last resort.” It’s last resort, Freddy and Fannie Mae. That is where the 2008 crisis began and should end with the elimination of these and other such government agencies. Artificial stimulation is simply that: Artificial and extremely vapid with no long-term sustainability for economic growth. Mr. West should know that the free marketplace, unencumbered and in context of the law of averages, will stimulate innovation that leads to job creation that leads to more personal income that leads to increase profits that leads to capital investments in R & D that leads to better products and services that leads to higher standard of living for everyone who is willing to apply themselves and work…Should I say more? And guess what, Mr. West? Those social issues for which you have dedicated your life for the cause will become less of an issue because people have MORE DOLLARS in their pocket. Now, here is the kicker. You talk about corporate responsibility being absence in the equation regarding the income gap between lower class and middle and upper class folks. How about a little personal responsibility from those lower class folks, who have seen increases in their wages due to less government intervention and more competition in the marketplace, especially when they blow their budgets and find themselves broke, not caused by events out of their control but rather ones they have control. If you spend more than take home (Freddy and Fannie Mae home mortgages revisited), pay the piper and don’t complain and demand that those who have been responsible with their income and budgeting are obligated to financially heal your self-inflicted wounds. It is that simple.

  8. Every time Cornell the racist opens his pie hole and spews forth his marxism, he sounds even dumber than the previous time he exhaled.

  9. …the left always resort to the PAST to defend their present failures not looking at the Socialist Regulations which they have slowly implemented over the past 100 years ! With Know new ideas coming from the left and REPEATING the insane policies of Obama ,


  10. A professor who does not understand basic economics, history and capitalism can only liberal propaganda speak.

  11. posted on alipac

    Professor’s ‘Death to Israel’ Rant Sparks Controversy at Kent State University
    By Todd Starnes

    Published October 28, 2011

    A Kent State University professor allegedly with former ties to a jihadist website shouted “Death to Israel” at a public lecture delivered on the Ohio campus by a former Israeli diplomat.

    The outburst came during a presentation this week by Ismael Khaldi, a former deputy counsel general at the Israeli consulate in San Francisco. During the question and answer period, KSU history professor Julio Pino launched a series of provocative questions at Khaldi.

    At some point, the professor shouted “Death to Israel” and then stormed out of the building. The event was first reported by the KSU student news site KentWired.

    KSU president Lester Lefton, who is Jewish, denounced Pino’s outburst, calling it “reprehensible and an embarrassment to our university.”

    At the same time, he defended Pino’s free speech rights.

    “It may have been professor Pino’s right to do so, but it is my obligation, as the president of this university, to say that I find his words deplorable and his behavior deeply troubling,” his statement read.

    Pino, who is originally from Cuba and a convert to Islam, did not return calls for comment.

    A Kent State spokesman confirmed the professor was once investigated by federal authorities. The university said they were also aware of allegations that Pino wrote stories for a now-defunct jihadist website.

    And according to the Akron Beacon Journal , the professor eulogized an 18-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber in the Daily Kent Stater, the student-run newspaper.

    And yet, the tenured history professor still remains employed by the university.

    University spokesman Tom Neumann told Fox News that Pino remains employed and has not been removed from the classroom. He declined to say whether an investigation had been launched into his latest outburst, citing privacy issues.

    The professor’s outburst has generated criticism and debate across the campus.

    “I don’t think it’s appropriate for a professor, an employee of the university, to engage in such hate speech,” student Evan Gildenblatt told the Cleveland Jewish News.

    Ken Jacobson, the deputy national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the university should consider taking disciplinary action.

    “This kind of language is inappropriate,” Jacobson told Fox News. “It’s vitriolic, it’s violent – it undermines the sense of safety for Jewish students on campus to have a professor use such outrageous language.”

    Jacobson said he was especially concerned about Jewish students who might be students of Pino.

    “It’s a real problem,” Jacobson said. “If he’s doing that in his classroom, he shouldn’t be teaching there.”

    Newmann said the university has received a number of calls and emails, and the president had been in touch with many of the local Jewish organizations near the university.

    “Whether you are a Jewish student or not, we find it very troubling,” he said. “That’s the point we want to get across. Dr. Pino doesn’t speak on behalf of the university, and that’s not the type of behavior we expect.”

    But Pino does have some supporters – among faculty members at the public university.

    Donald Hassler, a member of Kent State’s Faculty Senate, told Fox News that Pino is a “colleague whom I respect.”

    “We believe in freedom of expression and civil discourse,” Hassler said. “And those sometimes come in conflict – as they did in this case.”

    Hassler said Pino must have lost control at the lecture.

    “It lacked civility,” he said. “It was an example of hate speech. He knows better than to use hate speech. He has definitely strong opinions. He needs to state them in a civil way.”

    Ken Bindas, the chair of the KSU history department, told the Cleveland Jewish News that Pino was not attending the program as a professor, but “as a human being.”

    “I don’t agree with his comments, but at the same time, I can’t not defend his right to free speech,” he told the newspaper.

  12. Yes, professor, please finish your point. Cooper is a moron, and so is the phony professor. Another race extortionist. There is nothing in the Constitution about “Social Justice.” This is something the left made up to steal. This West guy can’t argue with someone as intelligent as Peter Schiff. It’s embarrassing to watch them give this commie creep air time.

    1. Oh, believe me there are more fools living here than you could possibly imagine. I HATE CT is my new bumper sticker. And now it’s freakin’ snowing. Just doesn’t get any better than this.

      1. DebbyX,
        I love the snow! My sister lives there. I live in Maryland, and we’re moving to VA in eight months, after our house is built. I love the North, I was born in Ohio, grew up in PA, lived in upstate NY, and it was beautiful, but I keep moving farther and farther South to get away from these people. I heard Maryland is losing revenue. They’re going to lose more. I’m going to write the Governor and tell him, his “New Americans,” can maybe pay for what we’re taking with us. Maryland is a beautiful state. The leftists have destroyed it. They call it the “Free State?” Not anymore.

  13. Funny, an accomplished expert on business and economics… versus… Fred Sanford’s next door neighbor.

  14. What I thought was interesting is that I think West could be converted. I love Schiff and his tone, and really feel West was listening and intrigued. I hope they get together for some coffee and Qoniack? ( is that really how you spell it?) What I disagree with is that the unions didn’t help get wages and child labor and such in line with descent labor practices. Did you know that the Gatling Gun was first used against Unions that were striking. I feel that unions did perform a vital service in raising up the Middle Class, but since the mid 60’s they have completely gone overboard. It is a good thing that the people working on a product can afford the product they produce because they are paid a descent wage. This helps the worker and the company.

  15. So, does the esteemed mr west give his books away? Or, maybe he does what BO does…have tax payers buy his books. Communist are hypocrites. The continuous promotion and growth of the State is nothing more than the increased ability of the State to take from one IOT give to another at the point of a gun.

    Coming from west the word “brother” is condescending. IMHO

  16. This is the difference between academia and real world experience. It is easy to view life from the outside, and comment. It is a bit more difficult to live and work in the real world, and make a difference.

  17. Artificial interests rates will be the death of this country. Roosevelt extended the Depression by a decade, due to his Works Programs. Also, the unemployment figure didn’t decrease, even though the government was artificially trying to manipulate the free market. The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by tying the banking system together, instead of letting a few bad banks with bad policies fail. They turned a localized problem into a systemic cancer. Read “The Forgotten Man,” by Amity Shlaes and Milton Friedman’s books on the Great Depression.

  18. Shift should have stated those that can do and those that can’t teach.
    Has west ever made a payroll, run a prftable buisiness? Aslo should have asked him if he(West earned all that money) why hasn’t he seeen an orthodontist yet. Youcould have driven a truck through that gap in those teeth.

  19. None of this liberal propaganda gets past Peter Schiff, he’s too seasoned and knowledgeable to let it slip by unrefuted.

    Imagine Peter Schiff vs Obama on economics, or Peter Schiff vs Paul Krugman on economics. My oh my, they’d get their asses handed to them.

  20. Amazing how little substance liberals posess. The use strong words but make blank points. Mr. Sciff sounded knowledgable and confidenet. Mr. West sounded predictable and rehearsed.

    1. Strong and inflammatory words…and the irritating habit liberals have of shouting you down or talking over you when they know they are wrong…which is most of the time.

  21. Yet another classic case of academic knowledge vs real business knowledge in a battle of whits and Mr Schiff beat him with half his brain tied behind his back. Really love the lady “We gotta get rid of the Bush tax cuts….(wait for him to ask me another question) We gotta get rid of the Bush tax cuts…(and repeat)”

  22. I really hope this happens next week and Peter is given the opportunity to state his case. I could tell the entire time that Peter wasn’t given the chance to state the full argument and it must not have come off well to people who didn’t understand what the other side of the argument was. That said there aren’t any better defenders of the free market today than Peter Schiff.

  23. Scoop, you got your headline just right. Peter should have asked Cornell if he knows Obama’s good buddy Timothy Geithner.

  24. Peter Schiff wouldn’t shift would he? Stood his ground solidly on the side of the free market. God bless you my brutha!

  25. Honestly, at least this is one of the first times that Cornell West was not frothing at the mouth and crying racism. When he leaves race out of the equation he actually makes succinct, albeit retarded, arguments.

    His argument that labour unions brought in child labour laws and a weekend is ridiculous. If you look at the developing world countries that transitioned into 2nd or 1st world they went through the same growing pains. Look at Hong Kong, Korea, etc…they had child labour, had 7 day work weeks and as they prospered through the free market then the standard of living grew, the companies became more efficient and they have shorter work weeks and little to no child labour. West seems to live in a crucible and does not realize that there is a great big world out there other then his racist, socialist reality.

    1. The progressives recognize the tide has turned and conversations regarding the relationship of man and government are being held at the national level. What type of system do we want governing our society? Communism, Socialism, A Republic based on capitalism and free markets? History has proven the first two do not work and lead to tyranny. Finally the silent majority is taking a stand. We have Barrack Obama to thank for that. Capitalism, individualism, liberty, the Constitution, American principles and culture, have taken a beating from the insidious plan of the communist implemented in the 30’s…change it from within. The plan has worked in large part when you consider the infiltration of our education system, our legal system, and the media. They miscalculated with the election of BO…they believed the propaganda had convinced enough Americans to a point where now the complete transformation of this country could happen. They became more open about their agenda, the began freely admitting “I’m a socialist”. They didn’t expect a response like the Tea Party or the Schief’s of the world standing up and defending the America of our founding. We owe a lot to BO for making them feel so bold and revealing who they really are. Another 20 years or so they may just have won. This election is really about that I think. We are deciding, as a country, how we want to be governed…Statism with less freedom -or- a return to a Constitutional Republic. If BO wins you can kiss America goodbye.

      1. Lost my point in that little rant. My intial point was…That is why people like west are a little more reasonable in their arguments…not in substance but in demeanor. I noticed also that he was NOT frothing.

  26. As much as I love listening to Peter Schiff, why do I feel like I’m bashing my head against a wall? Listening to these guys makes me feel like I just argued with my socialist family. Warn out and nothing accomplished.

  27. I love Peter but I’m tired of the screaming/shouting over each other stuff…just irritates me to no end.

  28. I’ll have what he’s having….Schiff that is.

    If I had teef like Cornell, I would not only be whistling past the graveyard, I’d be waking all of it’s occupants.

    Since our television has an MSNBC/CNN self-destruct feature, we never watch these shows. If Anderson does have these two back, I’d like to know about it in advance, be able to watch here at Scoop Theater, and have buttery popcorn and chocolate covered bacon at the ready… Ok I was just channeling Chris Christie some really well-rounded guy for a second. Sorry.

    If Cornell wants to help in some way, sDee and a few others could probably figure out a way to harness that hairdo of his in some fashion for power. It looks combustible. I’ve got Chaka Khan on retainer who’ll be willing to help, even if it’s just a smile and a kind word, (or further hair teasing)…other than that, all I really wanted to say is this…anyone who can hand West his heineken as handily as Schiff did here, is probably one of the 53% and demanding of ears and kudos. Is he great or what? Gimme more.

  29. Cornell West is the face and voice of the failed higher education system in the country. There is nothing more shameful than for a college to take money for a degree that has no market. Talk about greed OWS needs to go protest the college campuses that demand such high tuition knowing there is no market for the crap they teach. But of course the the colleges know this as they are part of this idiocy.

  30. So there you have it, it’s Bush’s fault! That woman in the video has Bush Derangement Syndrome and can’t see beyond her ideological hatred. The first thing outta her mouth is get rid of the BUSH taxes. WHERE ARE THE JOBS?? You can’t fix stupid!

  31. Capitalism has done millions of times more to benefit the poor than government will ever do and have done already. It’s government that has to justify its on existent.

    Capitalism is being destroy in this country without even a trial. (see Capitalism an Unknown Idea best seller). Nice to see someone actually defend it!

    By the way, in cast ur wondering the 1% is anyone that is making $380,000 per year or more.

  32. Cooper’s a jackass. First, he tells Schiff to be quiet and let the bucktoothed, fright-wigged moron blow hard, then he lets that same jerk with the electric shock wig continually interrupt Peter Schiff with stupidity about coffee and alcohol. I’d’ve told him to shut up, or I’d kill his mike until Schiff finished his point.

  33. I have to give it to Cornell West. Even though he is such an idiot, he gave Peter Schiff an excellent chance to dispel the myths that many at home are thinking.

  34. Corn-hole West looks like some blathering clown/funeral director. This is when nutcase professors go wild.

      1. Not only scary but appropriate for going house to house telling people that if they don’t give you some of their property they will face consequences.

  35. Schiff made his best point in one of his videos posted here…..the government shouldn’t have the power to affect the markets. He only glosses over it here, but it is the the most important piece of the puzzle. If the government has power to enact these changes in free market, then it isn’t a free market anymore and opens the door for big business to buy influence. He needs to focus on that specific issue. The fact that lobbyists can buy influence isn’t due to the business, it’s due to government expanding its own power which allows them to put their vote on the auction block.

    1. I use to dream about attending Princeton and I’m thankful, the money didn’t get wasted there. Damn, lowering the standards for students is one thing but lowering them for the faculty, well, that’s a sure sign of brain damage. Krugman, Bernanke, Woody Wilson, I suppose when you get down to it, the American University system is eff’ed

  36. Progressive income tax is redistribution no matter how you CUT IT. I am compassionate but logic and reason needs to be separated. A rational/compassionate income tax system is not a freebie, anger-driven, gimmie-what-you-got system.

    1. Its crazy how we have an income tax, even though its not an apportioned tax, and the constitution defines income as profits made by a corporation. Plus, isn’t your labor you property?

      1. I’ve been “donating” money for many years due to the tax code. I, along with countless others have been doing that same “donating” since the early 20th century and tolerating it due to the concept of “sharing”. Bad economy or NOT, a line has to be held on how much weight the productive members of our society carry on behalf of others. C West is safe in his Ivory (Ebony & Ivory) tower, cloaked in his professorial ROBE and working his attitude game. There’s no gap in his income…just his teeth!!

            1. …and every other intitution. Hopefully, God williing, his next institution will be Gitmo just before he’s hanged b y the neck until he is DEAD! But on a light nore, he’s such a jovial guy. sarc/

        1. Yep guess so. After all, Keynesian economics works unlike the untested theoretical free market scams of Uncle Milty Friedman. I like the idea we have a central bank for monetary policy. If we didnt the entire economy would have collapsed as would the dollar have been in TOTAL collapse just like in the 30s. Keynesian economics works and there is 50 years of empirical data to support that it works. Where’s yours that supports your theory?

          1. wow. that’s probably the dumbest thing i’ve ever read on a discussion thread this whole year… are you typing from an OWS poop campsite? how’s the free food??

            1. Exactly what was so dumb about it? See, thats what you guys love to do. You say something’s dumb or idiotic but cant present a congent argument as to how and why it is. And for your information I’m in my office at my own place of business precious. If you think the Occupy movement is all glory and fine dining, you’re sorely mistaken. This movement stands for something and is not going to be astroturfed like the lunchmeat that became the Tea Party.

              1. since you are the one calling out Peter Schiff and Milton Friedman as morons, dissect and deconstruct their arguments. seems to me the only thing you are in favor of are big gubmint, weak currency, inflation, zero savings, zero interest rates, endless deficits and liberal causes. look at where we are now with all of those things. how can you argue for more of the status quo? and what have you been smokin, cuz i want summa dat.

Comments are closed.