« D&D PHB PSA part 16 – D&Debate 2
Why debate dogma? »

TYT Debates Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root

http://www.rootforamerica.com/

Duration : 0:18:33


[youtube 3EEw6Ijz0Aw]

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 30th, 2010 at 2:20 pm and is filed under debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

26 Responses to “TYT Debates Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root”

  1. TheDalinkwent on May 30th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    @conspirator272727, …
    @conspirator272727, Well instead of always crying about how bad Gov’t is, why not look for ways to make it more effective and less over reaching?

  2. conspirator272727 on May 30th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    @TheDalinkwent …
    @TheDalinkwent Hahaha make government better? Are you kidding me? You think after 5,000+ years of civilized government you guys have figured out how to make government better by expanding it??

    I think TYT’s a smart guy but you can’t beat the knowledgable libertarians. This makes me want to look more into Root’s policies.

  3. @BrettDunbar Well …
    @BrettDunbar Well with that undeniably convincing argument I change my position. I’ll just disregard all the other people who “thumbed” me. (Not in THAT way, pervy wanker…)

  4. The libertarian WON …
    The libertarian WON this argument.

  5. The libertarian WON …
    The libertarian WON this argument.

  6. @mrcharm69 No.
    No …
    @mrcharm69 No.
    No he’s not.

  7. why do these tea …
    why do these tea party dickheads talk like they always want to fight someone.

  8. Ah, very nice …
    Ah, very nice interview! Cenk really pushes the critical questions and doesn’t back down. One thing though, is that both viewpoints are valid. I can easily see the reasoning behind Roots statements. The difference between them are the conclusions they come to. Cenk, of course, avoids taking ideologies to the extreme, and so wins clearly.

  9. @ …
    @dangerouslytalented

    Anyway, I was referring to the mortgage crisis. Look, it used to be that banks would vet you thoroughly before giving you a home loan. Why? Because THEY were on the hook if you defaulted. And if the bank was going to securitize, it used to be that the buyer would vet the security, because THEY were on the hook if it tanked. So what short-circuited rational behavior? The fact that Freddie and Fannie’s losses were guaranteed by the government.

  10. @ …
    @dangerouslytalented

    Actually, um, yes. In fact everything you wrote supports what I said. When you repeal regulation WITHOUT removing guarantees, you create a crisis. Repealing Glass-Stegall would have been fine if you’d also removed the FDIC. But the FDIC without Glass-Stegall creates a crisis. Why do economic liberals have such a tough time grasping this?

  11. dangerouslytalented on May 30th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    @twk373 Actually, …
    @twk373 Actually, no. The banks had been guaranteed by the FDIC for 40 years with no collapses, until Reagan deregulated the s&ls and they promptly collapsed. Then Glass Steagal was repealed, and all these banks and financial institutions could do all sorts of nutty trades which were profitable short term (earning execs and salespeople fat bonuses) but long term were highly toxic. Sure their bank would collapse, but they would have already gotten their bonuses so to them it does not matter

  12. Cenk seems to think …
    Cenk seems to think that the natural behavior of any financial firm is to make risky gambles, because of course all Wall Street cares about is losing all their money. Look, the reason firms gamble is because the government guarantees the losses. If you stop the moral hazards, you stop the gambling. It’s that simple.

  13. Cenk is just …
    Cenk is just ignorant

  14. @Cowicide And …
    @Cowicide And liberals are so sheeplike in their understanding of their masters. maaaah!

  15. You’re against the …
    You’re against the troops?! c’mon man how ridiculous is that assumption. Why should the protest be on wall street?! That’s like saying lets protest people who are getting medicaid. No, you protest the government for giving the bailouts. Simple, Cenk doesn’t understand that and doesnt listen to the most important part which is that those banks and businesses that took those risks should’ve gone out of business, not gotten rewarded… ? seriously?

  16. Why should we …
    Why should we protest Wall Street for ACCEPTING the bailout, as anybody would if they had the opportunity, and not the Government for GIVING it to them with OUR money?!?! The government are the crooks here.

  17. @TheDalinkwent Well …
    @TheDalinkwent Well now the banks are over leveraged and are going to make the same bad bets because they interest rates are so low. Also if they failed they would have went bankrupt 98% of all companies who are in bankrupt come out of it. Also I would rather see the government be making more soup kitchens instead of bailing-out the banks.

  18. TheDalinkwent on May 30th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    @dukee155, More …
    @dukee155, More than 60% of our economy is all of the big banks, if they go down there going to bring us with them, which is what happend in 08, which in a nut shell proves there two big to big to fail.

  19. @TheDalinkwent They …
    @TheDalinkwent They wanted to because they had such low interest rates I did not say that they were the victims here. Also these banks are not to big to fail they should have failed which would have let smarter and smaller companies take them over.

  20. TheDalinkwent on May 30th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    @dukee155, You seem …
    @dukee155, You seem to keep missing the point, THE BANKS WANTED TO GIVE OUT THE BAD LOANS, so every other point is moot, how can they be the one getting short end of the stick when they sent 1,500 lobbist to congress to keep things as is, there’s also another problem that led to the crises, which most conseratives don’t want to talk about and that’s “too big to fail”

  21. @TheDalinkwent They …
    @TheDalinkwent They were going to give out these bad loans anyway because the interest rates are at 1%.

  22. TheDalinkwent on May 30th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    @dukee155, Once …
    @dukee155, Once again the current crises has very little to do with Fannie and Freddie, the people who made the deals didin’t care about loosing money, they were just going to sell the bad loans anyway, you seem unable to grasp, that the banks are not in anyway shape or form the victims, they pushed congress to pass bills that would enable them to engage in these practices, why aren’t the banks lobbying congress to stop the “bad loans” if there really the victims.

  23. @TheDalinkwent They …
    @TheDalinkwent They predicted the profits because they knew that if they lost money on the loans they would get money from fannie, and freddie.

  24. TheDalinkwent on May 30th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    @dukee155, First …
    @dukee155, First off I never said that, you said that, there’s a difference between giving people loans at a reasonable rate and giving it to people who can’t afford it on purpose, but once again, this is what the banks wanted, a fact you just can’t seem to grasp, and while Goldman Sachs couldn’t have predicted a bailout, they sure did predict all the profits and bonuses they would get form predater lending.

  25. @TheDalinkwent So …
    @TheDalinkwent So you think the person without the money should get a loan. Hold on do you think that Goldman Sachs for example knew that they would get a bailout 10 years ago?

  26. REVIEW IT BEFORE YOU BUY IT!!! on January 16th, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    **YOUTUBE VIDEO REVIEWS ON THE HOTTEST ELECTRONICS OUT**…

    #1 SITE FOR THE LATEST REVIEWS ON THE HOTTEST TECHNOLOGY HITTING THE MAINSTREAM!…

Leave a Reply