He is one of the few folks on Fox News who isn't truly evil. Sure his libertarian views may be a bit obtuse, but at least he's not hating on gays or giving in to birther conspiracies.

Stossel is plenty evil. He hates on teachers, education in general, science specifically, anyone in a union, the EPA, the FDA, and corporations can do no wrong in his eyes. He regularly distorts, lies, and omits to further his corporate-feudalist agenda.

Five stars for the evil of Stossel.

He doesn't hate teachers, just their unions. And he doesn't hate those federal departments he just thinks they need to be cut back a lot. There are plenty of good things corporations can do. We need to find the right balance of regulation and freedom so that we all can thrive here.

Christ, libertarians are just the lowest form of scum on the planet.

Goddamit. John Stossel is, on average, a giant piece of fucking crap which no substantive scrub through his history will counter.

Geraldo Rivera has more redeeming traits.

He's a sickening troll of the old school. His counter-Rivera mustache has quivered through more hateful pandering than I care to recount.

Libertarian? Ignoring the issues surrounding both sides, pro or con, of that fucking black hole of ideological bleating, you think he has any actual, reasoned beliefs?

He is a Machiavellian organ grinder, sating the predictably fluttery enemies of progress who rise to any siren song of pre-minted outrage that they happen to recognize at that moment--likely between commercials for douches and IRAs.

He is lower than low. He is a slick with cynicism. He is an expressed duodenum splattering our culture with sputtering shame.

He generates looks. His mustache is mighty. He continues to be paid for that fucking sneer.

Any mention of the name John Stossel not broken up by, or followed with, "intense cunt", is lacking.

I think we all need a brief break; How about http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=4489

Cena, if nothing else, the Bush Administration should stand as a shining example of what happens when there is no regulation. Yet libertopians somehow claim that there's far too much regulation for those poor, subsidized, megaprofitable corporate entities that run so much of our lives.

Have some more fracking and unregulated derivatives while pissing on union membership (nationally at 12%, if not lower) and one of the few groups our teachers have to protect what pitiful incomes they're able to get for a job that's one of the most important out there. For every "bad teacher" Stossel trots out to show the EEEEvil of unions, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of unionized teachers doing incredible work with fewer resources than you could get at a garage sale for ten bucks.

I know there are problems with libertarianism, but we're still the good guys. We want freedom just about everywhere. Sure some libertarians are almost anarchistic and crazy, but others are cool. I'm surprised at you guys. We were doing so well, but then you're still hateful towards libertarians.

"C'mon, guys! Just give the market ANOTHER chance! This time it'll solve itself, we promise!"

It always does. It did in the past and it'll do it again. Look at all you have! Its the product of capitalism with some regulation. Its all good to love capitalism. The economy will be back and running in no time.

I think if Ron Paul had been magically elected in 2000 and he was somehow able to put the kibosh on the Federal Reserve's collusion with the big banks, when since the 90's they've been basically giving them a 0% interest, infinite credit line for their multi-trillion dollar Martingale form of derivatives trading, the country would surely be in better shape.

But he wasn't, so now we have to figure out how to shake the banks down, who are hoarding all of the quantitive easing cash and contributing to biflation; the sticky situation where there's plenty of cash out there but it's being hoarded, causing both inflationary and deflationary pressures on the economy in the worst ways (two economies).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biflation

In any case, if there was just more money being spent by the government, we'd be in better shape too. Most economists have been saying this for years. The stimulus was mainly a failure, but this was predicted by guys like Krugman and Stiglitz and DeLong in 2008, who argued from the beginning that it was like putting spackle on a sinking Titanic. We've solved this problem before with other big recessions and depressions.

Idiots like Stossel are not helping, just appealing to a mass of extremists who prefer ideology over evidence.

Here's a good bit on this from my friend John Aziz' econ blog.

http://azizonomics.com/2011/08/15/understanding-biflation/

I completely disagree with John, who could probably best be described as an" Austro-Keynesian," kind of an anomaly, but always worth a read. I think the effects of unemployment are so horrible in the long run that spending of any kind, even inflationary debt spending, is better than letting the "structural problems" die, taking the whole beast with it. I pretty much run the Krugman line.

I'm not against government spending. We could use a new New Deal to help bail us out. Just don't underestimate the private sector and capitalism because it'll work, we just need a jump start from the government. Lets get some new cutters built.

We need to rescind the tax cuts the private sector gets for shipping its jobs overseas. We need to tax capital gains as what it is: Actual income. We need to stop paying CEOs as much as we do, especially when they're screwing up the companies they run. We need to stop letting private industry write our laws, regulations, and tax codes. Corporations are not people, and should not be giving unlimited and untraceable donations (bribes, really) to elected officials and their campaigns.

Right now, everything is geared to give those who play video poker on Wall Street as much as possible while everything else, especially industries that actually make things, go to shit. And even in said industries, as long as you're the one who gets to send jobs overseas while you keep your golden parachute, you don't give two rips.

Also, I work there, so there's a decent chance you might get me as your professor!

I did this route. Or, as we called it, "13th and 14th Grades".

In Norway, you are more or less guaranteed ,000 a year with only a high school education.

Every individual is guaranteed a ,000 loan from the government if they wish to start a small business.

Each individual owns a piece of the oil industry.

Millionaires, despite whining about the system, almost unanimously defend it because they themselves benefited from it.

Do they have more individual rights than cena_mark?

Every Alaskan gets oil money. And they do have a lot of individual freedom in Norway, but no country is more free than the U.S.A.

Unfortunately that's not true, Cena_mark.

In Norway, 9% of new businesses are started out of necessity, meaning, in a state of desperation. Think of the guy that starts a garbage pick up business in his van because he's losing his house (even though he's a trained carpenter or what have you).

How about the USA? According to Inc.com, 25% of small businesses in the United States start out of necessity under similar strains. So you have Norway, which has a greater % of its workforce in small business than we do, and the United States, which has a declining % of small businesses driving its workforce, driven by people that often are doing so for the wrong reasons.

If freedom is controlling your own destiny, the USA is no longer the leader and has even fallen into the ditch of economic liberty.*















* Unless you count maybe getting a part time assistant manager position at Walmart a form of individual power.