“If I Wanted America to Fail” (Video)

Pretty clever move from Americans for Limited Government to premiere this campaign on Earth Day and claim Twitter suspended their account:

81 Comments on "“If I Wanted America to Fail” (Video)"

  1. Water Music | Apr 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm |

    are we supposed to mock this because it’s a free-market video and we’re anarcho-socialists, or are we supposed to be outraged because twitter has censored something? I’m a little confused, since JOIN or DIE has actually linked to something on Glenn Beck’s news site without smearing Beck as a lunatic.

    please tell us what to think. my brain is hurting and I don’t like all this cognitive dissonance.

    • We should think whatever Conservapedia tells us that liberals think.

    • Join0RDie | Apr 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm |

       I thought this site was about thinking for yourself and not being told what to think. It’s interesting so far this video doesn’t seem to have left the right-wing blogosphere much, that’s too bad.

      Not sure much to make of the Twitter situation, hard to tell if it was a stunt or someone at Twitter who didn’t like the video.

    •  In this case the video is nothing but a gross mashup of little truth and lots of lies. The difference between a regulated market and a completely free market. The regulated market does not accept human death and suffering as an acceptable measure of the quality of the free market.
      The completely free market accepts human death and suffering as a measure of the trial and error approach of the free market and the inevitable recycling of the problem repeated again and again and again.

  2. luther_blissett5 | Apr 25, 2012 at 6:54 pm |

    If I wanted America to fail I’d launch a clever viral video campaign pushing policies that cause America to fail.

  3. emperorreagan | Apr 25, 2012 at 8:54 pm |

    If I wanted America to fail, I would turn the “founding fathers” and the “constitution” into some bizarre religious mythology and spend my nights masturbating while fantasizing about an inquisition 

  4. DeepCough | Apr 25, 2012 at 9:54 pm |

    If I wanted America to fail….I would vote Republican, so as to hasten this persistent decline the Democrats are doing little to nothing to rectify themselves

  5. If I wanted America to fail… I would be a citizen of the rest of the world 

  6. Camron Wiltshire | Apr 25, 2012 at 10:53 pm |

    Nice to see people calling out climate change.  Sad to see so many people who haven’t actually studied the issue side with whatever the more liberal seeming portion of the left/right paradigm deems to be true.  Polemics aside, the pseudoscience the IPCC shovels is easily discredited.  

    • Agreed on the IPCC pseudoscience for sure.  As a geologist, I think the issue on climate change has totally been distorted.  The planet is getting warmer, we know that, it’s no longer a question.  The real question is how much is actually being caused by humans, and how much is natural geologic forces.  Don’t get me wrong, driving humvees and cranking your oil heat to 85° certainly is Adding to the problem, but I tend to think we have a egocentric view of the percentage of human caused damage.  Look at the Milankovitch Cycles for example: three planetary cycles on orders of thousands of years.  And when you plant the 3 on a graph at a million year scale you can see Long term temperature changes.  So right now, surprise, we’re coming out of an ice age according to this cyclic history.  Did you know technically we’re still in an ice age as long as there are glaciers on the Earth? Final point being, astronomical human 

      /* Font Definitions */
      {font-family:"MS 明朝";
      panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
      mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
      {font-family:"MS 明朝";
      panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
      mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
      panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
      mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
      /* Style Definitions */
      p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
      mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
      mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
      mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
      mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
      @page WordSection1
      {size:8.5in 11.0in;
      margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
      {page:WordSection1;} CO2 is definitely part of the problem, and we should work toward incorporating every renewable resource possible.  But if we did all that immediately, and stopped producing CO2, the earth would continue to warm because we're coming out of an ice age.  Simple as that.

      There I got my Geology/climate change rant out of my system.  Oh and I work for a company company installs solar panels.

      • CO2 production is definitely Adding to climate warming, and driving humvees at 10mpg or cranking your oil heat to 85° isn’t helping.  But if we cut all CO2 production immediately world wide, the Earth would continue to warm up Because We Are Coming Out of an Iceage.  It’s what happens, at least until glaciers Start forming again.  And these cycles that can be traced back hundreds of thousands of years.
        Ok…got my geology/climate change rant our of my system.  Also, I work for a company that installs solar panels.

      • MountainTop | Apr 26, 2012 at 2:05 am |

        Interesting comments from a geologist. Most comments here are from people
        who WISH they were experts about the Earth’s geology and climate… but instead simply worship lunatics such as Al Gore (The Fat Prince of Carbon Footprints)…

      • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

        I would need to see your source proving the planet is getting warmer.  As a geologist I imagine you might enjoy this fellow geologist/catastrophists perspective on the matter.

        I’m sure we are having some effect, but to what degree and compared to natural forces is it even worth focusing on in comparison?  Well if you want to try to trick people into paying for a new useless carbon credit trading scheme then yes, you should give it your total focus to the exclusion of all real environmental threats.  If you are not driven by the desire to exploit and manipulate on such a caustic level you can just look at the facts, the geological history of the planet, and employ common sense and see we are wasting our resources fighting a manufactured battle to make many irrational and immoral fat cats even fatter.Please send the source that gives you such assurance that the planet is demonstrably heating up.  So many variables to account for that I am skeptical of the merit of this position.  Thank you for commenting.

    • Long_Knives_Drawn | Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58 am |

      psssst! your an idiot! thanks. 

      • MountainTop | Apr 26, 2012 at 1:55 am |

        It’s “you’re” … as in “YOU’RE AN IDIOT, LONG_KNIVES_DRAWN!”

        • #1 If I wanted America to fail, I’d continually correct grammar on inconsequential internet comment boards.

          #2 If I wanted America to fail, I’d make a habit of immediately rebuffing another’s point of view with a snappy, “your an idiot,” with intentionally incorrect grammar so that I could further help America fail through #1.

          But why?  Because I want America to fail.

          • MountainTop | Apr 27, 2012 at 1:12 am |

            Ha! Thanks for your comment on this inconsequential Internet comment board. I disagree with you. But I like you. (Please note
            that correctly capitalized Internet.)

    • Monkey See Monkey Do | Apr 26, 2012 at 8:12 am |

      I always like to have a healthy bit of skepticism. But Over 90% percent of the scientifc community are certain climate change is human caused. I remember in past posts you were denigrating people who don’t follow peer-reviewed science. Why is climate change the scientifc discovery in which you decide the peer-reviewed science is not worthy? On that note, Are there many other scientific discoveries with over 90% percent consensus that you disagree with?. 

      • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 26, 2012 at 12:49 pm |

        SOURCE??? 90% huh? Ok, does that include the non climate scientists who the IPCC includes when they announce such concocted figures?  Consensus is meaningless when polemics and profiteering are the driving factors.  Why does the IPCC ignore peer reviewed data that completely undercuts their assumptions about CO@ea8ad69724f6b7f0185936c86f94c31b:disqus ??  You can’t have it both ways MSMD.  Watch this in it’s entirety, review the bibliography and tell if the respected journal “Nature” qualifies as peer reviewed enough in your mind.  If it does then my point stands and you must accept that the IPCC deliberately ignores data that does not confim it’s pre existent biases, in other words they are avoiding scientific method all together when it doesn’t suit their desired ends.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbihGWTT2IY&feature=plcp < Watch 1-4, you have a link to the bibliography there as well.   


        • Calypso_1 | Apr 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm |

          Your prodrome appears to be coming to an end. Do you notice how these atmospheric issues really seem to trigger you?

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 26, 2012 at 3:19 pm |

            Do you have anything to say relating to the issue at hand or do you just want to take pot shots calypso?  If you want to have a scientific discussion by all means, pony up to the table, otherwise please realize your statements are meaningless in this context.  Lies do trigger me to respond yes, lies equal suffering for someone somewhere.  If you are complacent and cynical don’t take it out on those willing to say or do something when lies  present themselves.  

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 26, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

            And the cycle begins again. Go ahead and run it up the flagpole to Ron Paul. I’m sure we’d all like this episode to pass without undue extrusion.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 27, 2012 at 4:00 pm |

            So you can’t manage to discuss the science so you fall back on your weak ad hominem game.  Win by default.  

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 28, 2012 at 12:05 am |

            You, science?  Rather!  How soon would you resort to waving a hockey stick when you wouldn’t know a Bayesian regression analysis of the price of tea from a matrix population model of fat-tailed lemurs. 
            You don’t discuss ANYTHING. 
            You hammer your own asinine political opinion ad infinitum; liberally dosed with accusations of rhetorical fallacies, all the while shilling in nearly every post for your favorite pet websites and using multiple logons to agree with yourself.  I am perfectly civil with you until this pattern starts, as it unfortunately always does. I look forward to your return to quiescence.  Maybe you should clean your bong or something.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm |

            So I take it you have no interest in debating the science of climate change?

             I guess my asking you to focus on one point and make a cogent argument supporting your perspective is too much to ask right?  

            Nice self righteous nerd rage by the way!  Lovely!  You should go door to door with that passion!  

            Now you butted your way into the conversation, and you are insisting that I don’t understand “Science” by using terms unrelated to the topic that was at hand until you went all Aspberger with your red herrings and ad hominem Ron Paul statements (just scroll up and tell me I’m wrong)  

            Now do you want to discuss the science pertaining to climate science or do you want to continue to shill for yourself and post meaningless nerd +1 arguments unrelated to the topic at hand? 

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 29, 2012 at 11:40 am |


        • Monkey See Monkey Do | Apr 27, 2012 at 8:14 am |

          Scientifc consenus is meaningless? Did I read that right? Because in case you haven’t noticed, profiteering and polemics are factors in just about everything, whether we’d like them to be or not. 
          I know its wikipedia but I found the references to be quite extensive and informative.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 27, 2012 at 3:58 pm |

            Where is your source to determine that over 90% are in agreement??  Who are they comprised of? Are you seriously pointing to wikipedia to ‘prove’ this erroneous belief?  Consensus is meaningless in the context of science because it science is not majority rule.  Remember that is the method of the bully, it is because I say so, and if you disagree you will pay… Ask Galileo right?!  

            What is your favored evidence supporting that AGW will wreak havoc upon the Earth?  What is the mechanism?  Are there any peer reviewed papers which disagree with this conclusion?  Have you read them?  Do you understand that many climate scientists do not adhere to the illogic of the IPCC and they understand full and well the end game of global carbon tax.  Why are you in favor of such a ridiculous scheme when it is proven it will do NOTHING to reduce warming?

            Ask yourself some hard questions, and write back when you can answer them.  If you want to try your luck, go to climateaudit.com and chat with some of the dissenting climate scientists.  

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 27, 2012 at 4:01 pm |

            climateaudit.org << correction.

          • Mr Willow | Apr 27, 2012 at 6:45 pm |

            As previously pointed out to you, Climate Audit is run by Steve McIntyre, the chairman of the Board of Directors of Trelawney Mining and Exploration Inc.* (also former director of 
            Dumont Nickel Inc., Northwest Explorations Inc., Timmins Nickel Inc. and Vedron Gold Inc., according to his profile on linked site below)

            He has a vested monetary interest in disproving climate change, and generally relaxing environmental regulations, so he can continue to destroy mountains. 

            It is a useless source because of this very obvious bias in the person running it.


          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 27, 2012 at 7:03 pm |

            I’m sorry but you are still not discussing the science.  You are just attempting to shortcut and bypass it by casting aspersions.  If that is your preferred method than you should be equally dubious of Nobel Prize/Academy Award / mouth piece for the IPCC’s Al Gore and his holdings of Generation Investment Management with David Blood of Goldman and Sach’s fame (Blood & Gore).  So obviously they have a MASSIVE profit motive to instill a GLOBAL carbon tax.  All business’ are looking 
             for their bottom line, I’m not sure what conclusive links between “climate change” and mining you are assuming.  Feel free to provide your perspective and evidence if you have any.  Please also remember that it has NEVER been conclusively proven that CO2 leads to enhanced temperatures that would be catastrophic whatsoever.  In fact even amongst climate scientists is debated as to whether or not the increase in CO2 
             related to our output more so than say enhanced solar activity cooking up the massive stores of CO2 present in the ocean reservoirs.
            Do you believe carbon credit schemes will do anything to help preserve our environment?  If so show me your reasoning.

          • Mr Willow | Apr 27, 2012 at 9:09 pm |

            As I have explained to you ad nauseum, I care little to nothing about climate change, and have a very distinct ire for Al Gore. 

            I only care about the destruction of the planet. Generally, this is accomplished by energy and mining companies—as the means of procuring finite and depleting fossil fuels and scarce minerals and metals involves the drilling of holes, the pollution of water supplies and the demolition of mountains; the burning of aformentioned fossil fuels dirtying the air we breath—but also lumber companies through deforestation, depriving both the planet the means of returning oxygen to the air and entire species of their habitats, including indigenous cultures in South America and Africa (et al), as well as (in the case of oil) fuelling conflicts over its control (do I need to point out that the same could be said for the mining of gems and rare metals? Blood diamonds ring a bell?) all in the name of higher short-term profits.

            And that is completely ignoring the glaring waste-disposal problems of nuclear power, and its potential for catastrophic failure. 

            If you really want my opinion, carbon tax could potentially incentivise oil, coal, and natural gas companies to shift their focus to the development of greener energy sources—solar panels, wind turbines, fuel cells (Honda has been developing a car that uses a hydrogen one, its only by-product is water vapor), etc. 

            Whether it will accomplish this remains to be seen (and I see it as doubtful considering the energy industry—as a whole—has congressmen in their back pocket and an army of lobbyist that will be writing all the bills, allowing them to skirt the laws anyway).

            Also, stating a person who—as the chairman of a Mining company—has a monetary interest in disproving climate change (since regulations regarding that would affect his ability to drill and bomb holes in the earth at his leisure) is not slanderous. It is stating a simple fact. So is saying Obama didn’t deserve his Peace Prize for giving speeches.

            The source is still biased, and therefore useless.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 27, 2012 at 11:27 pm |

            If you, “only care about the destruction of the planet” then you would do well to understand that you are actually supporting it’s destruction by supporting the hijacking of the environmental movement by the “climate change” green regime.  This is perhaps why the founder of Greenpeace resigned and why has said as much himself, that it has in fact been hijacked and that many crucial environmental issues are at a loss due to the fixation on the CO2 boogey man.  Is it really that hard to admit that it’s a scam that not only will have ZERO effect at controlling temperature long term, but also derails the real efforts to stop the desecration of the environment?  If you care, take the time to study, be willing to talk to people who disagree with you and actually look at their evidence and facts.  Ask Qui Bono, and of course be willing to admit you might have been duped.  It happens to the best of us.  

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 27, 2012 at 11:29 pm |

            Also you are confusing too many issues and presuming to discredit just one source in an illogical fashion.  Lets stick to the facts at hand and go point by point.  Can you address any of the questions I raised about the likelihood of AGW causing catastrophic climate change, if so by what mechanism and cite your sources, otherwise you are utilizing a red herring in my opinion.

          • Mr Willow | Apr 28, 2012 at 3:20 am |






            I. Do. Not. Care. About. Climate. Change. At. All. 

            (normal speed, now)

            The reason I support the efforts of the green “regime” is because I would rather have energy come from renewable sources rather than those that are finite and dwindling, the use of which, and the lust to control the sources of which, has led to all manner of death and destruction (pollution, habitat destruction, water contamination, near genocide of indigenous culture, wars in oil-rich countries, and the occasional disaster on the scale of BP’s debacle in the Gulf and Fukushima). 

            Plus, the alternative that is constantly presented is simply that we do nothing, that we continue in the manner in which we have. More oil, more coal, more nuclear, more natural gas. No solar, no wind, no water, no geothermal, none of it. No alternatives because ‘the market’ deems them unworthy of much thought—the only reason companies have embraced them to the degree they have is because of the GW debate, which made it viable to sell cars to people that don’t go more than 50 miles before stopping and needing 15 hours to charge up again—idiots (but again, fuel cells largely circumvent this). 

            All you have to do is look at the ^list of things I provided^ to see clear reasons why that is a bad thing unless you profit from all that misery. 

            Ask Qui Bono, and of course be willing to admit you might have been duped. 

            Which is exactly what you refuse to do in regard to the source I initially criticized. 

            Instead, you deflect the argument away from that and launch into a debate about GW which I have stated innumerable times (this post will probably constitute the tenth) I am not interested in, as I am indifferent in regard to the entire debate. 

            Pollution is a more immediate, more visible, and irrevocably harmful. 

            As I said, Mr.McIntyre’s company will be subject to (some of) the same sorts of regulations a coal mining company would if pollution/environment conservation were tackled in any serious manner. In light of this, the fact remains he has a monetary interest in staving off said regulations. 

            The source is no good because of its clear bias.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm |

            Not really.  No room to type, let’s move it to the top eh gents?

          •  mrwillow FTW

          • Jin The Ninja | Apr 27, 2012 at 9:30 pm |

             camron, every progressive and leftist person who is environmentally minded, will almost universally decry gore. genuinely. he is a neo-liberal capitalist swine- not any example of the framework from where most of these discussions between you and i, you and mr. willow or you and any number of posters take place. that is just for your own knowledge and for future reference.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 27, 2012 at 11:23 pm |

            So why the disconnect?  You hate gore and yet you believe he is acting altruistically just this one time?  I’m not here to argue framework as even though it is constantly projected on to me in strawman fashion, I would prefer to deal with the science.  So the questions I have raised should be answered, beating around the bush and ignoring the science while presuming you needn’t as long as you can paint anyone who is skeptical of the IPCC’s pseudoscience as a “conservative, right winger, anti-environment, oil company shill” is to ignore the evidence supporting that gore and his work on behalf of the IPCC are in fact fraudulent.  How do you both continue to ignore the legions of climate scientists who are not funded by any oil company who do in fact disagree with the pronouncements of the IPCC.  I would be happy to share them with you but at this point I doubt you will actually read it let alone allow it to sink in and alter your biases.  Even then I doubt you will conceded you are wrong.

      •  http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

        Now can I get you another glass of koolaid?

    • mysophobe | Apr 26, 2012 at 9:38 am |

      I think people tend to side with the “liberal” position on climate science because it has appeared relatively consistent and rational over the years. In contrast, the “conservative” position has appeared reactionary and emotional, not to mention disjointed and ever-shifting. It reminds me of the seven stages grief. People like consistency and confidence and are repulsed by indecisiveness and weakness, simple as that.

      • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 26, 2012 at 12:53 pm |

        What you said basically amounts to ad hominem/appeal to ridicule.  I’ve attempted to logically parse the particulars with you before to no avail.  Your entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.   

        • mysophobe | Apr 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

          I began my statement with “I think”, which usually means a personal opinion is about to be expressed. Thank you for allowing me to be entitled to that. I’ve said it before, you guys should have stuck with the James Inhofe “it’s all a giant hoax” position of strength. This nuanced, complicated, multiple front approach is killing you, especially considering your audience. If it takes more than a few minutes to explain it’s useless. Again, just my opinion.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 26, 2012 at 3:21 pm |

            Well again you are skirting around the issue and issuing platitudes that have no bearing on reality.  You can play that position all you like, but you aren’t fooling me or anyone who actually studies the material with an open mind.  The audience is welcome to follow up and study if they want to move beyond infantile sound byte polemics.  You are also welcome to advance your own studies.  Don’t let the format be your excuse not to be lazy and unreasonable.

          • mysophobe | Apr 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm |

            The audience? Seriously? That’s downright delusional. I watched those Randall Carlson vids at your request and expressed several legitimate concerns with them which you ignored. You seem to fancy yourself as a professional skeptic, but you’ve forgotten to be skeptical of other skeptics. Talk about lazy. Who funds Sacred Geometry International? Be honest.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Apr 27, 2012 at 3:47 pm |

            The audience, meaning whoever views it…. I don’t fancy myself anything (ad hominem) I’m simply presenting evidence, as I did before.  I answered your questions beforehand.  Whether you choose to believe them or not is your prerogative.  If you still have scientific questions, fire away!  Just dont’ expect me to take you seriously when you ignore evidence that doesn’t confirm your biases.

          • mysophobe | Apr 27, 2012 at 4:23 pm |

            Do I understand you correctly that you consider the “Randall Carlson’s opinions on climate science” interview series to be “evidence”? Earlier you claim he is a geologist, you and I both know that’s not quite true. The truth is that he is a well-spoken guy with a construction background who has a layperson’s opinion on climate science. He and I have a lot in common in that regard, aside from the fact that only an egomaniac would call themselves a master builder. If I began to refer to myself as a “geological explorer” would you start following me around like a puppy dog as well? It’s true, I’ve traveled and looked at rock formations. You touting this interview as evidence supporting your assertions would be no different from me presenting you with Gore’s film, then calling you incurious for not taking it seriously. Get real, Camron. Not everyone’s as gullible as you. I know, I know. Ad hominem. I’ll call it and raise you an appeal to authority.

      •  http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

        Let me pour you some more kool-aid…

  7. Kcooper85 | Apr 25, 2012 at 11:27 pm |

    If I wanted America to Fail I would make a short BLURB documentary like this one

  8. Fuck limited government.

    • MountainTop | Apr 26, 2012 at 1:58 am |

      Typical comment from an Angry Leftist  “intellectual” 

      • Monkey See Monkey Do | Apr 26, 2012 at 7:48 am |

        Sometimes the simplest sentence says it best.
        Everyone should be the government.

  9. Mr Willow | Apr 26, 2012 at 1:50 am |

    If I wanted America to fail. . . I would trust its well-being to an unelected oligarchy of billionaires glorified as job-creators. 

    • MountainTop | Apr 26, 2012 at 2:11 am |

      I suppose you’d rather trust the Government to be THE job-creators? That built
      a paradise in the free and happy Soviet Union.

      • Mr Willow | Apr 26, 2012 at 2:32 am |

        And you would have the job-creators be THE Government. . . 

        That created heaven in Fascist Italy, and sustains it in China. 



        • Can'tSeeTheTrees | Apr 26, 2012 at 10:56 am |

          “For many years you heard American people speak who admired Mussolini because he made the trains run on time in Italy. It never seemed to occur to them that we made the trains run on time in America without Fascism.” – Ernest Hemingway. 

      • Joao Correia | Apr 26, 2012 at 9:21 am |

         Just because it hasn’t been implemented right does it mean its the wrong answer.

        By the way, how is capitalism working out for you?

        •  “Just because it hasn’t been implemented right”?  There is no *right* way to do the wrong thing.  Socialism is the wrong thing.  Capitalism was working just fine, until the government got all up in it.  It’s not capitalism any more.

          • Jin The Ninja | Apr 26, 2012 at 8:58 pm |

             you realise the crisis was triggered (although not started) by the repeal of financial industry regulations beginning in 1980 and again several times- critically the repeal of specific legislation in 1999?

            capitalism only works for the few (in the first world, and an even fewer handful of those able to garner favour with the west in the third world).

          • Mr Willow | Apr 27, 2012 at 6:36 am |

            Working just fine as in the 1950s?

            As in, when the highest tax bracket was 90%, there was an enormous amount of funding for public programs of every description (education, transportation, etc.), every sector of the economy had strict regulatory agencies intent upon upholding the rights of workers and consumers, and the reasons American businesses were thriving was because a) they were concerned with providing a product rather than strictly profit and b) they didn’t have much competition, since Europe had just been bombed into a crater, along with all the manufacturing plants? 

            It was only after the government stepped out of Capitalism that it started going downhill.

          • Capitalism does not work. Its what got us here. Its the rich that got us in trouble. The day we lost control of our government was back in 1913 when Corporations were giving equal rights as a citizen. They have controlled our government for their best interest not the peoples. The government was design to protect it people. Instead its being used against us by the top 1%. Here is you a nice little video of what they have instore for the rest of the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a0zhc1y_Ns

        • You are an idiot. Plain and simple. How many tries do you need?

  10. if i wanted america to fail… It would have.

  11. too bad it is full of errors and emotional appeals to the absurd. fisk here:  

  12. u dont need to do anything, its allready going to shit 

  13. Fail at what?

  14. Really powerful how the narrator took such a bold stand for the status quo.   Glad some many people out there are fighting to keep things the same.  *sarcasm*

    “If I Wanted America to Fail”, produced by Americans for Limited Government and Tea Party favorite Adam Bitely.


    I’ll bet Ron Paul has some money behind this, it’s clearly his line of bullshit.

  16. If I wanted America to fail I would create a false social, political, economic and religious structure that divides people, makes honesty heretical, descent impossible and death a way of life.

  17. If I wanted America to fail I would let Russia buy the battery company that taxpayer stimulous bailed out and yet they took the money and run.  Then I would allow Russia to mine uranium in Wyoming and allow the community commie community organizers and lobbyists to buy bio (smallpox) labs because they KNOW they will make money on them.

    I would not jail George Soros for trying to cause an economic collapse.  I wouldn’t even mention that he uses the Ruckus Group (anarchists) to do his dirty work.  Perhaps poison the food supply, like lettuce, peanuts, meat, and other agriculture so farms go bankrupt and the oligarchy can buy them up for cheap.

    I would appoint czars.  Non elected officials that control us like Hitler’s brownshirts.
    I would put socialists and commies in the Dept. of education and teach them fake science.
    I would also put them in the Dept. of labor to menace families that allow kids to work on the farm.
    I would also put them in the Dept. of Transportation and give stimulous money to Buffet’s train system and stop the oil pipeline so Buffet and Nebraska Senator Nelson can get rich off taypayer slaves.

    I would allow immigration of Somalis to every state to grow the muslim population and thus, Sharia law will make it easier to keep these dirty patriots in line.

    Yep, Russia, China and the Middle East have bought off our leaders.  Freedom will be a thing of the past and a day of reckoning will happen and everyone will say, boo hoo, we trusted the union commie media, union commie hollywood, and the union commie Dept. of Education.

  18. unfortunately the defenders of this swill only base their enlightened world views on news outlets that base their content on Op Eds and assertion based arguments, not on facts.  Yes the left lies, Gore himself is related to one of the bigger oil empires in the Americas, Occidental oil.  You know the ones who help the Columbian Government get access to cheap US defense aid so they can guard the oil pipe lines that they use to steal the wealth of Colombia?  Yeah that shit bag company.  In the end though it doesn’t really mater what you throw money at, it will work.  Look at how the US has been conducting our economy for about 50 years or more, all consumption and nonsense military defense industry, that shovels money into contractors maws.  That works fine even though it just makes us enemies and helps gets wars started.  You could throw that same money at the biomedical industry and make jobs and do the same thing.

  19. Hanshan Temple | Apr 27, 2012 at 8:52 am |

     Peak Oil = Epic Fail.
    Surprised no ones mentioned it.

  20. Beeoriginal7 | Apr 27, 2012 at 11:36 am |

    I have a feeling most of these people didn’t watch the video all the way through.  

  21. “claim” twitter deleted their account.  hilarious. 

    And I “claim” you allowed or disallowed this comment because it did or did not suit your means.  Eat like three dicks, like you’re not biased in any way. 

    The only way to eliminate bias would be for typewriters to suddenly become autonomous and come out of hiding.

    If I, Me, wanted America to fail, I’d f**k over small businesses, and pretend “fly-over country” didn’t exist.  Half the worlds’ population exists on coasts.  One tends to neglect the lesser densely populated areas, because it’s all trees and places that make things we eat.

    Who cares about the places that make things we eat?  Not me.  I care only about New York  LA and Chicago, because that’s where half the voters are, white guilt, black vote, hispanic vote, divide and conquer.  Make everyone hate each other, but believe that you can draw them together, then sew as much white guilt as one can; and then use my donors to call everyone racist who calls me on my bs. 

    If you’re not with me, you’re racist, and if you’re with me, you’re secretly racist. 

    But at least you can alleviate your white guilt by voting for me, or at least by being an 18-22 year old college student enamored with my presence of personality.  That’s why me and Hildog drink beers now in dive bars instead of dealing with actual shit like Biden telling our donors in Turkey that they’re dull as Hell.

    Which you can get away with, and they’ll still donate, as long as you stop backing Israel.   They’ll hate you, but they’ll give you money so long as you leave our friends out there by themselves. 

  22. Camron Wiltshire | Apr 28, 2012 at 1:22 pm |

    Sorry guys, couldn’t read what you were saying below because of the sieve that was forming after a certain amount of posts.   Mr. Willow, please repost as it was very difficult to make out what point was being made when everything was falling vertically like Matrix code. 

     It’s fine that you don’t “care about climate change”  you can’t have it both ways though, either you understand the connection between AGW fear mongering, the hijacking of the environmental movement, and the desire to instill a global carbon trading scheme or you don’t.  If you are ignorant of this aspect then it is akin to discussing the war on terror without challenging the “official” conspiracy theory of 9/11 whatsoever.Now I am at a loss is why you presume that you can simply wave a rhetorical wand and say, look there, the guys who run that one site (there are dozens I can point to) they have a connection to a mining company so therefore I can ignore every scientific discussion or evidence presented therein. 
    That is just a little toooooo convenient and of course not scientific.  So my suggestion was that we actually discuss the science behind this issue and ignore the smear of, ‘well this person has a conflict of interest so we can’t trust their science’.   The irony is that the IPCC and the various carbon trading firms stand to gain the most from all of this by several orders of magnitude but I digress….

    We could do this easily by looking at peer reviewed reports which predate the entire AGW thrust, we could also study the findings not mentioned in the summaries for policy makers which ignore the climate scientists cited by the IPCC who show considerable disagreement and skepticism with the claims and assumptions of the IPCC all together.  

    It’s not a cut and dry issue as the propaganda machine would try to make it.  So no need for shit talking or insinuating intellectual insufficiency on either side from my perspective.  Let’s just dispassionately discuss the facts at hand and let the evidence lead where it may.  That is of course unless you don’t want to go there.  In that case, you’re welcome to your own opinions just not your own facts.  Peace

  23. Your name | Apr 30, 2012 at 9:57 pm |

    An unbelievably stupid video in reality, funded by Big Oil, full on contradictions, straw arguments and logical fallacies. The slick presentation will appeal to the under-educated and uninformed who are easily persuaded by colorful pictures.

Comments are closed.