If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   John Stossel explains why he is moving from the commie loving ABC to the fascist fanatics at Fox   (reason.com) divider line 198
    More: Interesting, John Stossel, ABC News, prime time, network television, fox, individual liberty, risk assessment, point of view  
•       •       •

5535 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Sep 2009 at 5:52 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-09-17 05:40:32 PM
DamnYankees: Shocking how easy it is to confuse them, isn't it.

I honestly don't see how anybody could confuse them. Total anarchy is about as extreme as you can get. Hard to confuse "no government" with "small government."

Hell, the Republican and Democrat parties look closer together to me than Libertarian and Anarcho-Capitalists do. Of course, my political leanings have something to do with that.
 
2009-09-17 05:54:13 PM
Or he could have just played C.R.E.A.M.
 
2009-09-17 05:57:25 PM
Fact:

You'll never see John Stossel and Keith Hernandez in the same room.
 
2009-09-17 05:58:08 PM
You gotta hand it to John Stossel, he's pretty unflappable. He gets told he sucks and has doors slammed in his face all the time, but he keeps on going.
 
2009-09-17 05:58:35 PM
DamnYankees: jbuist: . Another case of somebody confusing libertarians and anarchists.

Shocking how easy it is to confuse them, isn't it.


Libertarians have a monolithic viewpoint. Kind of like Democrats.
 
2009-09-17 06:00:27 PM
Stossel = Ignorant moron.
 
2009-09-17 06:02:42 PM
jbuist: Nice. Another case of somebody confusing libertarians and anarchists.

Libertarians are anarchists, they are simply ignorant of how their actions (or as the case may be, inaction) lead to anarchy.

It is a child like philosophy for naive individuals where like a five year old child all the things you want are "yours" and all the things you don't want are "not yours" (or more explicitly, someone elses problem).

There is a reason why you guys are in the vast political minority and it's not because you're so farking brilliant other people don't get it. Sorry, but to paraphrase fight club, you are not a beautiful little snow flake.
 
2009-09-17 06:08:39 PM
Have you ever read one of his books? Worse than Dan Brown's garbage. My mother gave me one once. I read the first page, then kick her ass and burned her house down. She is dead to me now. She still doesn't understand that I don't read shiatty books.
 
2009-09-17 06:09:14 PM
Never trust anybody with a moustache.
 
2009-09-17 06:11:06 PM
debujones: If I were Geraldo's mustache, I'd be worried.

punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-09-17 06:12:07 PM
Mr. Coffee Nerves: The only Stossel story I truly remember and appreciate is when he did the piece on the "Will Work for Food" people at busy intersections. He would offer them menial work in exchange for food and they would always decline.

Then he went to a homeless shelter where a group of ostensibly able-bodied men were sitting around and he had a list of jobs from a temp labor place and one man replied with a line that is still in use at my job to this day.

When asked "Why don't you come with us and take one of these jobs right now?" he replied:

"I can't. You see, I'm drinking today."

Needless to say, this instantly became the official response when given a task of any time.


I remember the one he did that was about salmonella. They put flourescent powder on a chicken to simulate it, did a little destraction song and dance and then panned back in on the chicken saying, "look at all that salmonella" (the glowing powder on the chicken). Of course the add immediately after the segment was Clorox kitchen disinfectant spray.

That is when I knew he was a complete tool and douchebag.
 
2009-09-17 06:21:07 PM
It's adorable that he thinks he's going to avoid rhetoric-pushing producers by moving to Fox News.
 
2009-09-17 06:24:45 PM
Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: It's adorable that he thinks he's going to avoid rhetoric-pushing producers by moving to Fox News.

Of course. He is weak and pathetic. No orginal ideas to speak of. Its just a crying farking shame. Some of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard came from this turd's mouth. Its crazy. I can't believe the Federal government allows this nonsense on TV (not that I own a TV, but millions of non Farkers do, and you know how they can be).
 
2009-09-17 06:28:22 PM
AdolfOliverPanties: But Glenn Beck IS a massive liar.

Drugs shouldn't be regulated? That's idiotic. Maybe there is too much regulation on drugs, but some is needed. I'm all for thinning the herd of people who overdose, but medicines need to be safe.


Regulated to be safe, sure. What about the new drug that is experimental? Should a person have the right to make an informed decision for him/herself? That's the kind of regulation that needs to go.
 
2009-09-17 06:37:54 PM
Libertarianism is a lot like Communism. It looks good on paper, but would never actually work in real life.

Because in general, people are greedy, selfish asshats.
 
2009-09-17 06:46:23 PM
Old enough to know better: Libertarianism is a lot like Communism. It looks good on paper, but would never actually work in real life.

Because in general, people are greedy, selfish asshats.


Libertarians are greedy, selfish asshats... it's kind of the reason why they advocate for it.
 
2009-09-17 06:47:04 PM
mrshowrules: mrshowrules: Mandatory in case it hasn't already been posted.

Libertarian Paradise


Oh and thanks for that.
I especially enjoyed the long-winded douchbag who apparently spent 17 minutes responding to a 1 minute video.
 
2009-09-17 06:47:34 PM
Government regulating can be good, but government INVOLVEMENT is where the problems begin. Government ownership is really where they begin to become a bigger problem. Lets let the adults run business and the government can watch....
 
2009-09-17 07:03:48 PM
DamnYankees: jbuist: . Another case of somebody confusing libertarians and anarchists.

Shocking how easy it is to confuse them, isn't it.



Well I certainly hope you don't care when someone confuses Democrats with socialists or republicans with fascists then...
 
2009-09-17 07:05:02 PM
Aren't Libertarians just Republicans who are OK with sex and drugs?

/ just my observation...
 
2009-09-17 07:08:45 PM
FOX News: the mustache network!

girlonthepark.files.wordpress.com

girlonthepark.files.wordpress.com

/I hope they have a mustache fight ...
 
2009-09-17 07:12:08 PM
Our Man in Nirvana: socially permissive Republicans [..] who dislike paying taxes to support anything other than the repressive facets of the state (police, army, prisons, etc., a certain amount of repression being necessary to the 'Libertarian' vision of 'liberty'.

That's me exactly! Neat
 
2009-09-17 07:14:26 PM
Yes, because history is full of examples of corporations doing the right thing just to do the right thing.

Private industry works great. Nevermind that $700 Billion in public money.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. " - Adam Smith (as read by Leonard Nimoy)

Srsly, wtf did Adam Smith know?
 
2009-09-17 07:14:57 PM
Surprisingly even-handed. I guess the question is whether he'll act the same in his actual reporting on Fox. I can imagine that lambasting Bush (security uber alles) and Reagan (drug war!) would piss off Fox viewers no matter how much Obama-hating there is.

/strong libertarian sentiments
//still wants a safety net, regulation, and strong EU-style anti-trust policy
///liking some aspects of an ideology doesn't mean I want Somalia, and that comparison was retarded anyway
 
2009-09-17 07:31:34 PM
img146.imageshack.us
 
2009-09-17 07:38:57 PM
i think stossle is a pretty cool guy eh, fights the truth and doesn't afraid of anything.
 
2009-09-17 07:43:56 PM
"Because I'll make more money."

That was really all he needed to write.

I suppose the rest was just to shore up his imminent explosion of right wing expressionism.
 
2009-09-17 07:44:40 PM
Give me a break.
 
2009-09-17 07:53:00 PM
Mr. Coffee Nerves:
When asked "Why don't you come with us and take one of these jobs right now?" he replied:

"I can't. You see, I'm drinking today."



So, did they share their TF handles?
 
2009-09-17 08:17:59 PM
I am a Libertarian Progressive

/leave me alone, I want to help someone...
 
2009-09-17 08:23:49 PM
AdolfOliverPanties: But Glenn Beck IS a massive liar.

Drugs shouldn't be regulated? That's idiotic. Maybe there is too much regulation on drugs, but some is needed. I'm all for thinning the herd of people who overdose, but medicines need to be safe.


You assume that regulation makes medicine more safe than market-friendly alternatives.

You assume that "safe" medicine is worth more than "living longer and/or more comfortably," as many would if more experimental treatments didn't have to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops before the US government will allow them to be used, even if they are used in other countries.

I hope you don't see my response as too aggressive. If you see where I'm coming from, then perhaps you can better understand WHY we libertarians believe what we believe.
 
2009-09-17 08:29:16 PM
DKinMN: You assume that regulation makes medicine more safe than market-friendly alternatives.

bjanepr.files.wordpress.com

What a market-friendly alternative used to look like.
 
2009-09-17 08:31:15 PM
FTFA:
Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine.

Meaning:
Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I allow mine to color my reporting because I'm a corporate shill with an agenda.
 
2009-09-17 08:32:47 PM
Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: What a market-friendly alternative used to look like.

Unless you can absolutely prove that Snake Oil was eliminated by government regulation, then you might be proving my point about markets weeding out that which is not effective.
 
2009-09-17 08:39:01 PM
Stossel then: Attention whore who will say anything, regardless of how stupid, to get viewers as a pseudo liberal douchebag
Stossel now: Attention whore who will say anything, regardless of how stupid, to get viewers as a pseudo libertarian douchebag
 
2009-09-17 08:40:11 PM
DKinMN: AdolfOliverPanties: But Glenn Beck IS a massive liar.

Drugs shouldn't be regulated? That's idiotic. Maybe there is too much regulation on drugs, but some is needed. I'm all for thinning the herd of people who overdose, but medicines need to be safe.

You assume that regulation makes medicine more safe than market-friendly alternatives.

You assume that "safe" medicine is worth more than "living longer and/or more comfortably," as many would if more experimental treatments didn't have to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops before the US government will allow them to be used, even if they are used in other countries.

I hope you don't see my response as too aggressive. If you see where I'm coming from, then perhaps you can better understand WHY we libertarians believe what we believe.


If there were no government regulations, Vioxx would still be on the shelves.
 
2009-09-17 08:40:17 PM
I think Johns first topic should be, "does the continued consolidation of media companies in markets across the US actually help or hurt the dispersion of information?" i bet Fox won't even let him write a sentence like that before the shut him down. As others have said John openly says he has a bias and this openly disqualifies him from being an honest journalist. He isn't in search of facts he is in search of reality through his lens filter. He will end up just parroting the line that Fox throws his way. No one enters that dome of seclusion with out selling their soul and becoming what they want them to.
 
2009-09-17 08:43:58 PM
DKinMN: Unless you can absolutely prove that Snake Oil was eliminated by government regulation, then you might be proving my point about markets weeding out that which is not effective.

The Pure Food and Drug Act (new window) of 1906 led to the Food and Drug Administration (new window) precisely because snake oil and assorted hoax-peddlers were at best simply deceiving people, and at worst, actively contributing to killing them with their "cures". Do you honestly want the the blood on your hands from letting the free market suss this one out on its own again?
 
2009-09-17 08:45:34 PM
jbuist: mrshowrules: mrshowrules: Mandatory in case it hasn't already been posted.

Libertarian Paradise

now clickable

Link (new window)

Nice. Another case of somebody confusing libertarians and anarchists.



Yes, of course. Anarchy is just Libertarianism practiced by poor brown people in the third world.
 
2009-09-17 08:50:11 PM
 
2009-09-17 08:52:20 PM
Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: Unless you can absolutely prove that Snake Oil was eliminated by government regulation, then you might be proving my point about markets weeding out that which is not effective.

The Pure Food and Drug Act (new window) of 1906 led to the Food and Drug Administration (new window) precisely because snake oil and assorted hoax-peddlers were at best simply deceiving people

pwned. heh.
 
2009-09-17 09:01:56 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: Unless you can absolutely prove that Snake Oil was eliminated by government regulation, then you might be proving my point about markets weeding out that which is not effective.

The Pure Food and Drug Act (new window) of 1906 led to the Food and Drug Administration (new window) precisely because snake oil and assorted hoax-peddlers were at best simply deceiving people

pwned. heh.


Not quite. You proved that Snake Oil and similar products led to the establishment of the FDA, you didn't prove that Snake Oil and similar products were eliminated by government regulation. They weren't. See: echinacea.
 
2009-09-17 09:20:46 PM
DKinMN: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: Unless you can absolutely prove that Snake Oil was eliminated by government regulation, then you might be proving my point about markets weeding out that which is not effective.

The Pure Food and Drug Act (new window) of 1906 led to the Food and Drug Administration (new window) precisely because snake oil and assorted hoax-peddlers were at best simply deceiving people

pwned. heh.

Not quite. You proved that Snake Oil and similar products led to the establishment of the FDA, you didn't prove that Snake Oil and similar products were eliminated by government regulation. They weren't. See: echinacea.



The existence of any quack medicine just shows that the markets will try as hard as possible to circumvent regulations in order to sell crap to retards. The existence of quack medicine TODAY, just undermines your own argument, that the markets themselves will eliminate their own crap. But we can thank the FDA for removing literal snake-oil from the pharmacy shelves.
 
2009-09-17 09:38:09 PM
I'm saying this as a professional regulator.

You would not believe the shiat that some companies try to get away with in their applications to regulatory bodies. It leads me to believe one of two things about some of the companies applying to us: the technical staff putting together their applications are either grossly incompetent or they're incredibly unethical. Evidence that contradicts their conclusions are conveniently omitted and it's like pulling farking teeth to get them to enter it into the record after we dig hard enough and find something missing.

The bar they have to meet isn't that high either. The regulatory body I work with regulates with a pretty light hand and lets business do what business does because they're, for the most part, going to get it done safely and fairly for all parties involved. Yet, those companies are always trying to get that bar pushed lower. The burden of proof for them is becoming: "It's good enough because I say so, not because you need evidence".

I'm pretty convinced that the world would be smoking wasteland without regulation. Aand I'm talking reasonable, even handed, and fair standards, not OMGWTFBBQSOCIALISM -- if I wanted to be the one coordinating everything a corporation did, I'd be working for them as a manager or executive.

/rant over
 
2009-09-17 09:41:44 PM
Government oversight certainly isn't perfect, but I'll take it over a 'they eventually killed enough people that folks finally noticed, word got out, and sales dropped to the point that they were forced out of business' system.
 
2009-09-17 09:42:32 PM
Our Man in Nirvana: The existence of any quack medicine just shows that the markets will try as hard as possible to circumvent regulations in order to sell crap to retards. The existence of quack medicine TODAY, just undermines your own argument, that the markets themselves will eliminate their own crap. But we can thank the FDA for removing literal snake-oil from the pharmacy shelves.

But not from Amazon.com
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2009-09-17 09:53:15 PM
Wow I'm shocked and awed. So many people in this thread seem very content to be kept sheeple of your government. Listen, it doesn't take more than a couple of minutes of reading ahistory of the world to gather a pretty consistent overview of strong centralized governments, versus weak decentralized governments.

Let's just keep the comparison to the 20th century shall we.

Strong centralized governments-Soviet Russia, People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Islamic Republic of Iran, Baathhist Iraq, Baathist Syria, list goes on.

Qualifier for the next batch, there is no actual libertarian state currently in existence, but these are the ones that come closest

Weak(er)decentralized governments: United States of America, Canada, Germany (post-war), Italy, India

Notice something interesting there. It would appear that when you concentrate power at one point things tend to go a little wrong. Like lots of people dying in camps or from starvation wrong. Like legions of secret police meant to keep dissenters afraid and the people terrorized into obedience wrong. Like mismanaged economies and ten of millions destitute wrong.

Government is not there to protect your First, Second, Fourth, Thirteenth, or Fourteenth Amendment Rights, the Amendments were created to protect you from the government

Just an observation

/If you feed the beast, don't be surprised when it bites you
 
2009-09-17 09:57:36 PM
Pubby: /If you feed the beast, don't be surprised when it bites you

If you starve the beast, don't be surprised when it's not around when a bigger beast comes to feed.
 
2009-09-17 10:01:24 PM
Pubby: Wow I'm shocked and awed. So many people in this thread seem very content to be kept sheeple of your government. Listen, it doesn't take more than a couple of minutes of reading ahistory of the world to gather a pretty consistent overview of strong centralized governments, versus weak decentralized governments.

Let's just keep the comparison to the 20th century shall we.

Strong centralized governments-Soviet Russia, People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Islamic Republic of Iran, Baathhist Iraq, Baathist Syria, list goes on.

Qualifier for the next batch, there is no actual libertarian state currently in existence, but these are the ones that come closest

Weak(er)decentralized governments: United States of America, Canada, Germany (post-war), Italy, India

Notice something interesting there. It would appear that when you concentrate power at one point things tend to go a little wrong. Like lots of people dying in camps or from starvation wrong. Like legions of secret police meant to keep dissenters afraid and the people terrorized into obedience wrong. Like mismanaged economies and ten of millions destitute wrong.

Government is not there to protect your First, Second, Fourth, Thirteenth, or Fourteenth Amendment Rights, the Amendments were created to protect you from the government

Just an observation

/If you feed the beast, don't be surprised when it bites you


How's Somalia's completely decentralized and powerless government working out for them?
 
2009-09-17 10:03:40 PM
DKinMN: AdolfOliverPanties: But Glenn Beck IS a massive liar.

Drugs shouldn't be regulated? That's idiotic. Maybe there is too much regulation on drugs, but some is needed. I'm all for thinning the herd of people who overdose, but medicines need to be safe.

You assume that regulation makes medicine more safe than market-friendly alternatives.

You assume that "safe" medicine is worth more than "living longer and/or more comfortably," as many would if more experimental treatments didn't have to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops before the US government will allow them to be used, even if they are used in other countries.

I hope you don't see my response as too aggressive. If you see where I'm coming from, then perhaps you can better understand WHY we libertarians believe what we believe.


And you assume the exact opposite, even while reality tells you your wrong if you pay attention.
 
Displayed 50 of 198 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report