Ellen Degeneres Videos
Ellen Degeneres Related Videos
Ellen Degeneres Sponsors
You like it? Share it!
Search
Ellen Degeneres videos :: Social Bookmarking 
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: CssEllen Degeneres Videos
Currently Watching: Latest videos by sidewinder77
 |
The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand) Posted by: Sidewinder77
Video duration: 353 seconds From The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, Gary Cooper as Howard Roark delivers the memorable courtroom speech in self-defense for dynamiting Courtland. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
 |
Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime Posted by: Sidewinder77
Video duration: 271 seconds From ABC 20/20 Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity with John Stossel, Myth #10 Gun Control Reduces Crime Download this video at DivX Stage6: http://stage6.divx.c om/user/Sidewinder77 /video/1729445/Myth: -Gun-Control-Reduces -Crime Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
ABC 20/20 Freeloaders - Creating Dependency Segment Posted by: Sidewinder77
Video duration: 474 seconds John Stossel examines homelessness in America. Should we help the homeless or are we creating a culture of dependency that makes it difficult for people to improve their lives? Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great Posted by: Sidewinder77
Video duration: 284 seconds From ABC 20/20 Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity with John Stossel, Myth #1 Ethanol is Great Download this video from DivX Stage6 here: http://stage6.divx.c om/user/Sidewinder77 /video/1729477/Myth: -Corn-Ethanol-is-Gre at Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion Posted by: Sidewinder77
Video duration: 261 seconds Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
The 4 Ways to Spend Money by Milton Friedman Posted by: Sidewinder77
Video duration: 195 seconds 1. You spend your own money on yourself. 2. You spend your own money on someone else. 3. You spend someone else's money on yourself. 4. You spend someone else's money on someone else. Sorry for the horrible quality on this one. The original source was a low quality .rm file from http://freetochoose. net/media.html Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
1.11 - Chicago School (Commanding Heights Sample) Posted by: Sidewinder77
Video duration: 334 seconds Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy Outside the mainstream The spirit of Chicago Harnessing economic forces The Keynesian high tide Watch all of Commanding Heights at PBS.org http://www.pbs.or g/wgbh/commandinghei ghts/hi/story/index. html Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
1.3 & 1.4 Vienna and the Soviet Union Posted by: Sidewinder77
Video duration: 405 seconds Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy Hayek explores socialism The Austrian School's critique What Lenin learned Stalin's totalitarian plan Watch all of Commanding Heights at PBS.org http://www.pbs.or g/wgbh/commandinghei ghts/hi/story/index. html Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Latest comments made on this video:
By: deinse81. on 23 Nov 08, 15:34:44
Cool. I agree. I guess I credit the Constitution (and the idea of limited gov.) for the success of the US system, that's why I had trouble being clear: universal suffrage is always the way to go, no matter how limited the power of the government: We should always only try to limit government through convincing people of the benefits, and by changing the culture, through speech, rather than through some undemocratic means.(like citing the Constitution, and ignoring popular opinion over it)
By: BlackProteus. on 23 Nov 08, 05:09:51
deinse81 - I follow your point. In fact, I don't have any problem with constitutional systems. My concern about your comments was that it seemed you were distancing yourself from democratic (let's call it) systems. If you agree that universal suffrage is a good thing, with the caveat that you think it only works with a strong constitutional backbone, then I can also agree with that. (But the USA is not the only country on Earth with such a thing -- as long as you realize that.)
By: deinse81. on 23 Nov 08, 03:53:24
I think I've finally found a better way to say what I mean: Saying that the US is a Democracy is different than saying the US is democratic.(which it is) "The US is a Democracy" means that the principles of Democracy describe the US system completely. However, Democracy (while it might contain the idea of human rights) says nothing about the specific rights in the Const., or separation of Church and State, or absolute freedom of speech, etc. (gun-rights, all the other amendments)
By: BlackProteus. on 23 Nov 08, 03:18:19
deinse81 - "This is turning into a very narrow discussion" I don't mind. It's good to be clear. I'm learning things, and maybe you are too. It's a good discussion, though we disagree. We agree that the USA is not an Athenian democracy. But, again, that is not the only form of democracy, nor is it the definition of democracy in the English language. In terms of the contemporary world and the English language, the USA is a democracy.
By: deinse81. on 23 Nov 08, 03:14:16
Let's put it this way: Iraq and the US clearly are very different. If you had to say which represents better the concept of "democracy", what would you say? Personally, I would say Iraq does, because they interpret the word literally. And that results in the rule of the people, which is clearly bad. Why did this happen? Because Bush thinks the US is a Democracy. Had he known it's a Republic, based on individual rights (and sep. of Church and State), that's what he'd try to build there.
By: deinse81. on 23 Nov 08, 03:06:32
This is turning into a very narrow discussion, but I'm using it in the "athenian democracy" sense, in which there are no individual rights, the electorate rules over everything. It is this sense the FF's understood it to mean too, in fact they sought to distinguish the American Republic from a Democracy. The world today uses many words in many meanings, and that's the problem:when liberals are socialists, and we're turning Iraq into a "Democracy" like the US, it's important we are more careful.
By: BlackProteus. on 23 Nov 08, 01:53:29
deinse81 - "What I am arguing with is the idea that the US is a Democracy: majority rule over rights." But "majority rule over rights" is not the definition of democracy, so the USA *is* a democracy. I suspect you are referring to some author's limited use of the word democracy in his own essay as "majority rule over rights" -- but that is not the definition the world uses. I understand your point about the FFs' goals in statecraft. Nevertheless, the USA is still a democracy.
By: rightnow1212. on 22 Nov 08, 20:56:34
The credit crisis is not a money crisis but a moral crisis. Since Reagan/Greenspan we have seen the "moochers" (ourselves) destroy what is still great in our country. Personal consumption debt stands at $50 Trillion in 2008 ($10 Trillion in 1987), Government debt (50 trillion) Non creation of value but only consummption. "Individualism" now is about plunder not wealth creation. We are the collectivists and we are on a road to self-destruction. We can change but we must first understand.
By: Jazzper79. on 22 Nov 08, 15:06:45
It is so beautiful!! Love that speach Jesper, Denmark
By: deinse81. on 22 Nov 08, 13:53:58
I agree that it's possible to circumvent the inperfect priciples of our Republic, with or without popular support. I'll even agree that popular support helps. What I am arguing with is the idea that the US is a Democracy: majority rule over rights. The Constitution is aimed at preserving individual rights, not democracy. Elections are just a limited tool towards that specific end. (FF's assumed that americans will lean towards freedom more than some tyrant-and so far they were mostly right)
By: BlackProteus. on 22 Nov 08, 00:45:43
deinse81 - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for instance - if a majority voted against them, they could be wiped out. In the US, that's not the case" You are wrong. The USA is representative democracy, and so the leaders can change the laws in a way that deprives people of liberty -- all perfectly within the bounds of your system. For example, the Prohibition of alcohol. Your Constitution is not an example of perfection, but can be influenced badly even within its own logic.
By: BlackProteus. on 22 Nov 08, 00:38:38
deinse81 - For the third time: democracy and republicanism are not mutually exclusive. The USA, where people vote in their leaders, is by that fact a democracy. The republicanism of the Founding Fathers, by your definition, suggests that they were against referendums. That does not make the USA something drastically different from a democracy.
By: deinse81. on 21 Nov 08, 04:35:27
That definition does not completely describe what the United States is: there are certain limitations on this government, that a democracy does not have: a democracy doesn't have to respect the individuals' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for instance - if a majority voted against them, they could be wiped out. In the US, that's not the case, and there are many other limitations.(on the military for instance, which can only be used in self defense)
By: deinse81. on 21 Nov 08, 04:29:31
But of course the United States is not a democracy. The US is, in theory, a republic: in theory, its citizens cannot vote on a law, if that law contradicts the letter or principles of the Constitution, nor can the elected officials go against those principles.
By: rjbonacolta. on 21 Nov 08, 02:26:30
In Political Science, the only thing you need for a democracy, are free elections where any eleigbale citizen can vote, either on a law or for office holders see Putnam's Bowling Alone or Democracies in Flux
By: ipx4. on 20 Nov 08, 23:27:03
"Je voterais volontiers une loi qui permette de pendre une douzaine de banquiers par an". Jonathan Swift
By: ak47taufi. on 19 Nov 08, 18:58:09
the whole movie is pretty fast with the plot, at least first time I saw the movie after reading the book, but I enjoy watching some parts of the movie once in a while "build it as a monument to that spirit which is yours and could have been mine"..
By: KentLansing. on 19 Nov 08, 09:53:47
heAR! heAR!
By: Dionysius779. on 18 Nov 08, 22:20:11
This is certainly not how I imagined this while I was reading the book. He speaks too quickly and does not put enough emphasis on his words. They should remake it.
By: BlackProteus. on 16 Nov 08, 19:11:34
There's no difference between your republicanism and democracy. The only thing I can see that counts differently is that you seem to be against any form of referendum. A very small distinction.
By: BlackProteus. on 16 Nov 08, 19:08:58
Thanks for addressing my questions seriously. I don't want my message about Americans and the FFs to be lost: many Americans are blinded by devotion to the FFs, and fail to evaluate them objectively because they are full of nationalist feeling. You see evidence of this in the recurring argument from authority: "The FFs said X, so X is true." I encounter it all the time. It's a fallacy. They were just men. They were capable of error, and they sometimes did err.
By: BlackProteus. on 16 Nov 08, 19:04:34
"But by the proper, scientific classification we are not a democracy." There is no "scientific classification" of state structures. These are social structures we are talking about.
By: BlackProteus. on 16 Nov 08, 19:03:12
"As I said before, a republic is a nation in which the common people vote for representatives that handle the affairs of government for them." This is not inconsistent with the definition of democracy. You seem to think they are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Some republics aren't democratic, and some are. A republic can be a great variety of things. The American definition is merely one. I'd say the Roman preceded the US's version.
By: someguywithanaccount. on 16 Nov 08, 01:07:54
And no, I don't advocate fascism, in which military and party authority reigns supreme over its subjects. That is very different from republicanism, in which the will of the people is translated through popular election, though limited in its capacity to render unto the people everything that they ask for. In a republic, the voters don't vote for laws. They vote for the people that vote for laws, thus creating a bridge between the law and the will of the mob.
By: someguywithanaccount. on 16 Nov 08, 00:32:33
Clowning with others does please me, which is why I was talking with someone else. You just happened upon the conversation, which is fine. How says that metaphor cannot be mockery? If I said "Jim Bob's house is a pig sty," is that not both metaphor and mockery? For you to say we have an addiction to the FF's, as if it were a drug or bad habit, is to mock the very motive that conservatives have for wanting to preserve our Constitution. I don't appreciate it. But we can just agree to disagree