Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has not been doing well in polls, fund raising, or in the two Republican Presidential debates held so far.
As a result of his failures, and the complete disaster that his libertarianism represents to any intelligent person, Paul has gone on the attack against Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who is doing very well in public opinion polls, particularly among millennials, despite his “Democratic Socialist” advocacy.
Paul has said that Sanders would bring dictatorship and a mass genocide to the world, similar to Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung of China, and Pol Pot of Cambodia, a totally outrageous and preposterous assertion.
One would think that Bernie Sanders is somehow dangerous, when he is not one bit dangerous, while Rand Paul’s vacant libertarian Ayn Rand philosophy of selfishness, greed, and lack of concern for the poor and disabled is the true sickness and evil in political discourse!
Paul is doing what Donald Trump is doing, asserting that Socialism in the American variety is the same as Comunism, as the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Fidel Castro’s Cuba, demonstrating that neither Paul nor Trump have a clue as to the massive differences between American Socialism and Communism, as practiced in totalitarian dictatorships.
The fact that Sanders is advocating Scandinavian style Socialism (Norway, Sweden, Denmark), and that the New Deal of FDR, the Great Society of LBJ, and Barack Obama’s reforms represent similar ideals and goals is made out to be something to panic over, when we have been living with “Socialism” for a century, and not many Americans, even those who say they hate Socialism, are about to give up the benefits and successes of the New Deal and Great Society, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, labor reforms, consumer reforms, and environmental reforms!
To label Sanders a dangerous Communist reminds us of the Joseph McCarthy era, already being started on right wing talk radio and Fox News Channel, and the American people should not allow themselves to be subjected to such hysteria and mass panic, when there is not an iota of truth to the allegations of the right wing, and the libertarians, led by a failing Presidential candidate, Rand Paul!
A Teapublican wants to impeach Hillary. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-rep-mo-brooks-already-wants-impeach-clinton-over-emails
Just when you think the right can go no further into Crazyland, they prove you wrong.
Brooks is what Trump means by,…..”We are being led by very very stupid people!”
Ha! Ha! Agreed Rustbelt!
Over the past few years, Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul vanquished his so-called Libertarian ideals and became just another Republican.
If I was a Libertarianâ€”and I have never been and never will beâ€”I would have rejected Rand Paul just on the grounds of being anti-gay and anti-marriage equality.
I think the senatorâ€™s shifts, being a same-state colleague with majority leader Mitch McConnell, had enough impact on Paul that he can no longer pass the smell test.
Rand Paul having anything to say about Bernie Sanders is just Republican Rand Paul figuring he should say something about Bernie Sanders. (Completely pointless effort.)
Canadians don’t want right-wingers.
If young people were not ignorant of the dictatorships and mass genocide the various types of socialism’s have brought upon the world, then maybe his statement would have been unnecessary. But both the internationalist and nationalist variety of socialism caused nothing but destruction and the young should be made aware of this because thanks to our educational system they are not. So Paul’s statement is welcomed. And in the end, socialism is basically based on a minimum on coercion, not individual freedom. Economic equality, which is one of the socialist goals, invariably requires a great deal of political inequality in which the mastermind planners in order to impose their plans must necessarily destroy our freedoms and rights.
LOL! More like Rand Paul is the ignorant one.
Since the debate last week, Hillary has increased her lead over Bernie and Webb is dropping out and plans to run as an independent.
I think that some potential voters may be getting tired of waiting for Biden to announce so they’re switching to Hillary.
I just got a robo call from Ben Carson’s campaign. To opt out of the call, they want you to call some phone number.
So totally agree! Canada’s election is bad news for US conservatives!
Vox explains what a social democracy is, and it is nothing like communism:
Social democracy is a version of socialism that emphasizes the need to achieve socialist goals â€” worker empowerment, a more even distribution of wealth and income, universal access to health care, education, and other essential services â€” through representative democracy rather than through revolution. Itâ€™s the version of socialism thatâ€™s enjoyed the most real-world success, both in the Nordic countries and in other rich nations, and itâ€™s the version that the main left-of-center parties in all European countries, many Latin American ones, and Australia and New Zealand embrace.
Thanks so much, Rational Lefty, for posting this clear cut explanation of democratic Socialism.
From the Vox piece:
1. “But social democratic parties have traditionally identified as socialist, and emerged out of socialist movements. And historically, social democracy developed not as a more moderate form of capitalism, but as a revised and refined version of Marxism.” Meaning that democratic socialism is based on Marxism.
2. “In this, Bernstein was helped by the existence of non-Marxist “ethical socialists,” who, unburdened by Marx’s focus on capitalism’s tendency toward crisis, also tended to emphasize social reforms and electoral politics ahead of revolution. The most important group here was the Fabian Society in Britain, which grew to be a key intellectual hub of the nascent Labour Party.” So why are Progressive Democrats enraged when we call them Fabian Socialist? Just admit it!
3. “Communism, by contrast, is achieved as the state gradually “withers away,” and the extreme technological progress enabled by socialism leads to such abundance that ownership and private property become essentially irrelevant. Classes evaporate, and all human needs are met.” In theory socialism is just a step towards achieving the Utopian communist society.
In other words the: “There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialismâ€”by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”
Ariel, don’t you have more important things to do than be a right wing troll?
I second that Professor!
Not really! LOL This is getting interesting… it seems like Democrats or at least your fellow progressives here, are finally going to admit they are socialist or if you prefer Democratic Socialist. I see that more and more people are coming out of the shadows and being brave by admitting the support Democratic Socialist policies. The Democrat party should admit they are in line with the Democrat socialist parties of Europe once and for all. I believe you would be happy, wouldn’t you? All I am doing is cheering you guys on…don’t be afraid of you political beliefs, stop hiding behind words like “progressivism” or “modern” liberal. Just go full “democratic” socialist all the way!
And furthermore, you should be pleased that I read most of the links that are posted here. The Vox link was very interesting, their explanation of the Democratic Socialist’s Marxist origins is refreshing! Finally someone that doesn’t deny the Marxist roots of Democratic Socialism. Whenever anyone tries to tell me that they are Democratic Socialist but not Marxist I will just have them follow the Vox link! Thanks Rational Lefty!
LOL! He probably lives in his Mommy’s basement and is too lazy to get a job.
Oh Rational…that’ the thanks I get for reading the link you posted! LOL!
The Democrats are NOT dictators and are NOT evil. Get that fact through your stubborn mind once and for all!
Ariel and Rand Paul are equally ignorant. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/rand-paul-shamelessly-links-bernie-sanders-genocides-throughout-history/
Teapublicans don’t have brains. Only straw. LOL!
The link is actually between Marxism and genocide. Now if Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist , and if “historically, social democracy developed not as a more moderate form of capitalism, but as a revised and refined version of Marxism.â€ as the VOX piece affirms, well….then it is not our fault.
Ha! Ha! Good one Southern Liberal!
Folks – Rand and his sheep are stuck in the red scare of the 1950s. Not a lot of reality contact in that crowd.
Only when they decide to join us in the year 2015 is when we’ll take them seriously.
Stuck in the 50″s? Seems to me you guys are stuck in the 30’s. What’s with this New New Deal? How many New New Deals do you want? FDR already called for a New New Deal in 38! You guys are stuck in the last century, you love your 20th century big government! Old bureaucratic solutions like always. And we are the ones stuck in the past? You want a 20th century government expansion for a 21st century world.
Ariel – Let’s get something straight. Several of us here are moderate Democrats. While we like some of what Bernie says, Hillary is the candidate we’re more in support of.
Folks – Ariel and the Teapublicans are purposefully confusing economic ideas with dictators in order to scare gullible people. The problem with Ariel’s strategy is that we’re not the gullible people he’s trying to reach.
Here is the audience he needs to spew his nonsense to: http://www.redstate.com/
As the following link points out, Sanders, despite disliking the term which has been tarnished by Republican corruption of the system, is actually a capitalist. He wants to reform the system, not destroy capitalism. He does not support a command economy, or dictating everything by the government. There was no “Red Dawn” in Vermont when Bernie Sanders became mayor of Burlington. Even in the most far left Scandinavian countries, which go far beyond any changes Bernie Sanders could ever bring to the United States, entrepreneurs do quite well, and there is no mass killing by the government.
As this blog points out, most American socialists donâ€™t consider Sanders to be a true Socialist, and certainly not a Communist. http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2015/10/13/bernie-sanders-not-harmed-by-democratic-socialist-label-among-voters/
Thanks so much, Princess Leia, and Rational Lefty, for these links, which are simply more evidence of the venal nature of the far Right and its troll, Ariel, who lies through his teeth with a grin, and has nothing else to do, since he likely is an inheritor of a large fund from daddy, and does not work for a living, and instead spends time promoting division and poison.
Any intelligent person knows he is a phony and a charlatan.
Bernie Sanders may not win the nomination or the Presidency,. but he is no threat to basic civil liberties or freedoms, and neither is Hillary Clinton nor Martin O’Malley, while most of the GOP candidates ARE a threat to America and its values.
The flaw I’ve seen with Bernie is that he’s a one-trick pony. Income inequality is not the only important issue.
I agree with Rustbelt’s assessment. A good presidential candidate should be a multi-issue candidate.
This gives an example of the types of fussing I’ve seen amongst liberals/progressives online. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/21/scientific-polls-rising-numbers-reveal-hillary-clinton-won-debate.html
The issue for me at least is not Bernie. For all I care he is a political herbivore and bumbling redistributionist big government socialist. My issue is this idea that the media and Washington elites are pushing that socialism is a good thing. Socialism is just form of statism, which is another form of tyranny. Individuals must abandon their own ambitions in favor of the ambitions of the state; people are shaped and dominated by the state by being stripped of their uniqueness.
LOL! We have had a mixed economy for decades and absolutely nobody has been stripped of their uniqueness.
Leia – Ariel fell asleep during economics class.
LOL! Mrs. Clinton is right. Teapublicans are statists in their desire to regulate personal decisions.
According to this, “statist” is a libertarian thing and they got it from Ayn Rand. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0609/Is-Hillary-Clinton-a-statist
Quite agree Rustbelt! The Teapublicans are hypocritical about how they want to use their “small” government.
Thanks for the Pragmatic. I’ve heard them flinging that around before but never knew where they came up with it.
As for Ayn Rand, all of us sane people here agree that her philosophy has made our nation greedy and selfish. http://www.alternet.org/culture/how-ayn-rand-helped-turn-us-selfish-greedy-nation
Rational Lefty, the heritage of Ayn Rand has poisoned and infected so many people, and it has created a sickness in our society, which, has made selfishness and greed paramount in too many people’s minds, and is undermining the American future, if it is not suppressed and overcome. Very sad, indeed!
Because of ignorant people like Ariel out there, Bernie’s going to be making a speech explaining about socialism and how it’s not a bad thing.
As Bernie says in that article, your public library, your fire department or your police department, are examples of socialist institutions. Nothing evil about that.
Leia: We already have capitalism, and you participate in it. It designed and built the firetrucks, and police stations and hospitals, and created the wealth that paid for them.
Governments do well in certain capacities that are limited to: law enforcement, intelligence, defense, and certain critical and quickly responsive services like fire departments. They don’t even do well in education, and there is a reason why home schooling, charter and private schools kick the crap out of most public schools! Governments are political institutions (politics creeps into every decision) they don’t worry about efficiency, they are not customer oriented, they tend to be process/systems focused, they end up being highly regulated and impersonal, they are not innovative and they tend to get abused by people that leach off them. There are uses where effectiveness is more important than efficiency, such as in the realm of national security, and in those functions a government excels.
Conservatives are not anti-government. Aside from the issues caused by limitations on freedoms, the threat of a disproportionate amassing of power and to our republic as an economy socializes; from a sheer economic standpoint they just want to use the right tool for the right job, and governments don’t do well managing health care, running insurance companies, building cars and motorcycles, in the media, or even in the construction business.
1. Introductory economics would distinguish between private or consumer goods and “public goods”, i.e. services such as police and fire protection, road construction, etc. that are available to everyone, and whose use by one person does not diminish the availabilty of those public goods for use by others. To suggest that acceptance of the existence of public goods while rejecting the socializing of the rest of the economic system represents hypocrisy is indicative of a level of ignorance that may be impossible to overcome.
2. Free market economics recognizes that public goods are typically managed by governments, and in an ideal system should be managed by the most local form of government possible. This is why police and fire protection services, and public education are most effectively managed by local governments rather than state or national governments, and road contruction and other infrastructure projects are typically managed at county or state levels.
3. Social security is an excellent example of how the government can forcibly interject itself into the personal savings and investment decisions of an individual and make him much worse off than if he had been left to make his own decisions. While some people would simply not provide for their futures (so they in the long run are better off as slaves to the state), anybody who took put half of the money confiscated for Social Security out of each paycheck into a conservative market indexed annuity fund over his career would have an investment portfolio at retirement roughly six to ten times what social security will be worth. Furthermore, the investment portfolio would belong to the individual to do with as he liked and available to his heirs rather than property of the government.
4. As for insurance, it is an excellent example of a market-based solution enabling consumers to pool risks. Most of the problems with insurance are the result of government interference in the insurance market.
Certain matters, such as defense at a federal level and fire safety at a local level, are traditional government arenas. The Founding Fathers, having viewed the bloated British government and sick of its heavy taxation, wisely enumerated only specific powers for the Federal government, limiting the federal governmentâ€™s role in individualsâ€™ lives. British and European history is full of examples of government overreach and over-taxation; the tragedy is that while our country was established to be different from those experiences, it is now beginning to imitate those mistakes.
1. Centralization leads to power in decision making, information, control of force and the means of production to be controlled by a small few. Itâ€™s a threat to a free society. By its very nature, communism, socialism, Baâ€™athis, Maoism…….all forms of centralized governance end up robbing people of freedom. THE ONLY economic model that truly allows for a free society where a democratic process works, where information and people can move freely, where people have real rights and the power of self determination is one in which you have a free market, capitalism. The more you centralize, the less free a society becomes- period.
As societies centralize, they see religion as a threat, since it competes with the power base of the central government. Centralized regimes may they be NAZI or communist, Maoist, or Baâ€™atist (Saddam), socialism or Chavism (Chavez Venezuela), they all tend to be highly secular. It tends to be a thinking and society where the rights of parents, the rights of couples, and the religious freedoms end up being trodden upon. From Chinaâ€™s one child policy and forced abortions, to the illegality of homeschooling in Germany today, their flat out refusal to accept Scientology as a religion………. Religious people should inherently should fear the central thinker.
2. The only exceptions to where socialism hasnâ€™t brought economic malaise are those where you have external influences propping them up. Socialist schemes are not economically viable, they are in 90% of the cases nt self supporting. If in Dallas we were to cut off the tax revenue to the DART (it’s public transit), it would go broke. From Social Security, to Medicare, social schemes are not modeled economically around something that is sustainable (A contemporary buzz word which liberals, progressives and socialists fail to use where it actually applies). When you take socialism on a national level, you get what you had in the former East block, the Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia under Tito……… It doesnâ€™t work. It only works on a micro level because essentially youâ€™re robbing Peter to pay Paul, and so long as you have productive viable businesses out there you can plunder, youâ€™re able to float this dead drift wood.
The problem with socialism is that the basic forces of economics and human nature are omnipresent, but those advocating this thinking simply choose to ignore them.
Even in the US, near all social schemes are failures. When sold as a success to the public by one of their advocates, they seldom focus o the economics and attempt to sell thee feel good results. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these social schemes get money injections from somewhere, and often these are hidden or back door games. Margret Thatcher said it best in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, â€œ…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other peopleâ€™s money. Itâ€™s quite a characteristic of them.â€
Fire Departments are run by local entities, not the national government. This means each and every local entity can run their FD as they see fit. In the city in which I live, we have a volunteer FD. Other cities employ full time units. This is the way our system of government, federalism, was originally designed: to allow local communities to meet their own needs as they each see fit. This is not socialism â€“ at all. Socialism, loosely defined, is an economic system centrally-planned by a government where the means and distribution of goods are owned collectively. A service run by the government (e.g. armed forces, fire departments, etc.) is not prima facie evidence that socialism exists within a country. This runs contrary to what leftist progressive liberals would have us believe when they cite the evidence of a government-run service as evidence America already enjoys some limited benefits of socialism. This is demonstrably false!
LOL! He purposefully misunderstands yet again. Shows that he needs to go back to school instead of wasting his time trolling here.
Bernie is pointing out that we already have some socialism mixed in with our capitalism and that it hasn’t hurt us one bit. This is a fact that our troll needs to finally get through his stubborn mind.
So the Romans had “socialism” because they taxed, ran an army and sewage system? Give me a break.
LOL! For our troll, facts are falsehoods and lies are truths.
LOL! Totally agree that he needs to get some education.
Here is what I learned in school:
Socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability.
This is what Bernie is pointing out:
His overall argument is not for a completely socialist nation. This would not work. A completely capitalist nation would not work either.
He is just simply saying that the two can co-exist. He, and, those of us with brains, know this because they always have. Socialism and capitalism have always co-existed in America.
We also believe in freedom. We believe options are a form of freedom.
Right now in the United States of America, we can send mail through the public postal service or we can choose a private option like FedEx. We can send our kids to public school or private school.
As liberals and progressives, we don’t want a government takeover, we want options. We think we should have the freedom to be able to choose to have government health care if we don’t like our private plan.
Socialism is not a bad thing. It is a foundation in this country of ours. Claiming socialism is bad because of radical and non-factual comparisons to Hitler and Stalin is like saying all guns are bad because of the Columbine killers and Jared Loughner.
National socialism and communism are very, very different from Democratic Socialism here in America.
Exactly right Former Republican!
Ariel said: Conservatives are not anti-government.
LOL! Not the impression we get from the way they whine about it all the time.
Former Republican says “We think we should have the freedom to be able to choose to have government health care if we donâ€™t like our private plan.” Really? What about the ability to choose NOT to have health coverage?
Ariel, if you choose NOT to have health care coverage, you are a moron, and should not be given emergency care in the ER, as why should we pay for you if you are stupid enough to be unwilling to have health care coverage and pay your fair share?
Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of solidarity, equality and liberty, viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should ‘treat others as they would wish to be treated’, and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called “the road to serfdom.” Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.
Democratic socialism prevailed in Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the Fabian Society and the British Labour Party. It was inspired by Socialism and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for Industrial Democracy, that is, for the government to own (“nationalize”) major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.
The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the Communist movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted “Controlled Capitalism”. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.
Within the European Union, a form of democratic socialism was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt.
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The nationalization of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.
State pensions and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists–they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor Bismarck in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George of the Liberal Party, and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s,New Deal in the 1930s.
Unlike its cousin Communism, which seeks to destroy capitalism by (violent) revolution and replace it with a different social and economic system, social democracy seeks to regulate capitalism via central planning. This gives the government a role of intervening in order to remedy its alleged deficiencies.
It is generally considered that the international Left split into two distinct camps after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Members of the more extreme factions around the world, which sought to achieve radical societal change through revolution, became known as communists, while members of the less extreme factions, which sought to pursue gradual change through the democratic system, became known as social democrats. The roots of these divisions, in fact, long preceded 1917: Marxists, for example, had called for violent revolution in the nineteenth century, while more moderate parties such as the British Labour Party had never espoused such ideas. Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek writing in 1945 observed, “To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different â€“ the very destruction of freedom itself.
You do realize that there are people who can pay their own way with healthcare don’t you? That said, as a principle, it is an attack on individual freedom , and I say individual because it is the only type of freedom that has any meaning, to force anyone to participate in any market, such as the health insurance market.
Actually, folks, this is what Sanders is talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
I second that Ariel is a moron.
Sanders tickles his supporters’ ears with all the usual Marxist claptrap; America is bad, banks are bad, equality, the middle class, minimum wage, free healthcare, free college, a government so big it will be like living in a utopia. Sanders calls himself an outsider and anti-establishment. He has spent the last 40 years in politics. He is in fact an insider and the establishment.
Sanders does take pleasure in creating the same straw men as Obama. Specifically, the GOP war on women. Calls to defund Planned Parenthood is an opportunity for Sanders to denounce the treatment of women. He would kill a child in the womb for any reason and at any term but the GOP is extremist. Sanders will say the GOP wants to deny women’s health services. The facts are that 13,000 women’s health centers are available that are not owned by Planned Parenthood. He supports babies chopped up and sold for parts. No concern for underage victims of rape not being reported. He is indifferent to the fraudulent billing of the US government.
Class warfare is favorite theme for Sanders, pitting rich against the poor. His Marxist lynch pin is the argument that the banks are too big. He also claims that billionaires are hurting the country, citing the Koch brothers over and over. He believes that America needs to spend another $18 trillion dollars despite being $18 Trillion in debt. In one rant, Sanders claimed that Americans needlessly have too many choices when it comes to deodorant brands, noting that he counted 23 different types of the product for sale. Somehow he tied the story into feeding the poor. He has said that America is racist, and he puts down America almost daily. In all of his years in politics, Sanders never authored a bill that made it into law. Sanders headed the Veterans Affairs Committee. Under his purview; waiting list deaths, destruction and manipulation of medical records, whistleblowers punished, opiate abuse, fraud unpunished, mismanagement rewarded with pay raises, wait times to see a doctor has never been longer. Sanders has done next to nothing to fix these issues. Even today while he campaigns, he is still a member of the committee and has no plans to turn the duties over to somebody that will give it the time it deserves to fix.
The other Teapublican theme song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZznBNMiZas
“I’ve got mine, so f you.”