Youtube comments of Mark Armage (@markarmage3776).

  1. 816
  2. 624
  3. 381
  4. 258
  5. 194
  6. 182
  7. 153
  8. 153
  9. 152
  10. 141
  11. 130
  12. 109
  13. 106
  14. 94
  15. 88
  16. 88
  17. 85
  18. 80
  19. 75
  20. 71
  21. 66
  22. 64
  23. 63
  24. 61
  25. 56
  26. 56
  27. 55
  28. 51
  29. 50
  30. 49
  31. 42
  32. 40
  33. 39
  34. 39
  35. 38
  36. 38
  37. 37
  38. 37
  39. 36
  40. 36
  41. 35
  42. 35
  43. 35
  44. 34
  45. 33
  46. 32
  47. 32
  48. 32
  49. 32
  50. 32
  51. 32
  52. 32
  53. 32
  54. 31
  55. 31
  56. 31
  57. 30
  58. 29
  59. 29
  60. 29
  61. 28
  62. 28
  63. 28
  64. 27
  65. 27
  66. 27
  67. 26
  68. 25
  69. 25
  70. 25
  71. 25
  72. 24
  73. 24
  74. 24
  75. 23
  76. 23
  77. 23
  78. 23
  79. 22
  80. 22
  81. 22
  82. 22
  83. 22
  84. 21
  85. 21
  86. 21
  87. 21
  88. 20
  89. 19
  90. 19
  91. 19
  92. 19
  93. 18
  94. 18
  95. 18
  96. 18
  97. 18
  98. 17
  99. 17
  100. 17
  101. 16
  102. 16
  103. 16
  104. 16
  105. 16
  106. 15
  107. 15
  108. 15
  109. 15
  110. 15
  111. 15
  112. 15
  113. 14
  114. 14
  115. 14
  116. 14
  117. 14
  118. 14
  119. 14
  120. 13
  121. 13
  122. 13
  123. 13
  124. 13
  125. 13
  126. 13
  127. 13
  128. 13
  129. 13
  130. 13
  131. 13
  132. 13
  133. 13
  134. 13
  135. 13
  136. 13
  137. 13
  138. 13
  139. 12
  140. 12
  141. 12
  142. 12
  143. 12
  144. 12
  145. 12
  146. 12
  147. 12
  148. 12
  149. 12
  150. 12
  151. 12
  152. 12
  153. 12
  154. 11
  155. 11
  156. 11
  157. 11
  158. 11
  159. 11
  160. 11
  161. 11
  162. 11
  163. 11
  164. 11
  165. 11
  166. 11
  167. 10
  168. 10
  169. 10
  170. 10
  171. 10
  172. 10
  173. 10
  174. 10
  175. 10
  176. 10
  177. 10
  178. 10
  179. 10
  180. 10
  181. 9
  182. 9
  183. 9
  184. 9
  185. 9
  186. 9
  187. 9
  188. 9
  189. 9
  190. 9
  191. 9
  192. 9
  193. 9
  194. 9
  195. 9
  196. 9
  197. 9
  198. 9
  199. 9
  200. 9
  201. 9
  202. 8
  203. 8
  204. 8
  205. 8
  206. 8
  207. 8
  208. 8
  209. 8
  210. 8
  211. 8
  212. 8
  213. 8
  214. 8
  215. 8
  216. 8
  217. 8
  218. 8
  219. 8
  220. 8
  221. 8
  222. 8
  223. 8
  224. 8
  225. 8
  226. 8
  227. 8
  228. 8
  229. 8
  230. 7
  231. 7
  232. 7
  233. 7
  234. 7
  235. 7
  236. 7
  237. 7
  238. 7
  239. 7
  240. 7
  241. 7
  242. 7
  243. 7
  244. 7
  245. 7
  246. 7
  247. 7
  248. 7
  249. 7
  250. 7
  251. 7
  252. 7
  253. 7
  254. 7
  255. 7
  256. 7
  257. 7
  258. 7
  259. 7
  260. 7
  261. 7
  262. 7
  263. 7
  264. 7
  265. 7
  266. 7
  267. 6
  268. 6
  269. 6
  270. 6
  271. 6
  272. 6
  273. 6
  274. 6
  275. 6
  276. 6
  277. 6
  278. 6
  279. 6
  280. 6
  281. 6
  282. 6
  283. 6
  284. 6
  285. 6
  286. 6
  287. 6
  288. 6
  289. 6
  290. 6
  291. 6
  292. 6
  293. 6
  294. 6
  295. 6
  296. 6
  297. 6
  298. 6
  299. 6
  300. 6
  301. 6
  302. 6
  303. 6
  304. 6
  305. 6
  306. 6
  307. 6
  308. 6
  309. 6
  310. 6
  311. 6
  312. 6
  313. 6
  314. 6
  315. 6
  316. 6
  317. 6
  318. 6
  319. 6
  320. 6
  321. 6
  322. 6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. 6
  328. 6
  329. 5
  330. 5
  331. 5
  332. 5
  333. @Britannic hayyomatt No, the problem with you, kid, is that you can't distinguish between actual norms and your own norms. Not the other way around, your right in the real world isn't defined by your definition of anything, it is defined by what others decide what it is. That's how a society is formed. Womens aren't affected that much in war, kid. Losing a husband isn't the same as getting shot, want to know why? Study Geography, there's a specific chapter on population pointing ot why the gender structure can be balanced even though people have more preference to boys. Guess what? Wars killed a few millions of men, not women. Bombing? Kid, if there are bombing, they kill all people, not just the women, 10 soldiers = 1 nurse, nice try, kid. A movie recommendations? Too see whether medic in the fields are women or men, idiot. You're arguing the basis of life on an absolute basis, and that's just ridiculous. Here's the shortened version for you, if you want your baseless opinion be taken into account, then others baseless opinion shall also be taken into account, a serial killer wish to kill you as he doesn't consider you life is okay, right? Different opinion, true? Use your brain, unless you. An unknown, probably not that smart person can come up with an absolute definition with actual proof to form a new society that allows for random killing based on opinions, then we, the smart ones shall followed the previously agreed rules of the free world. Which is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, which we're compassion enough to include you in it, protecting your right to live, your right to liberty and your right to pursue happiness even though you think that you have no such rights, as in how you decided that laws varied in individual. If it's too long, here's the shortened of the shortened version. IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER A FETUS A LIFE, AND THAT'S THE ONLY BASIS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT, SO THINK WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER YOU A LIFE, IF WE DON'T CONSIDER YOU A LIFE, WE CAN JUST KILL YOU? You'll probably be desperate enough to type something totally irrelevant to the question trying to save face, but tell yourself what you wanna hear, smoke what kind of substance you want to smoke, it can't change the truth. Think it your way, well, go into space, that's where laws varied from people to people, and that's actual space, not inside spaceships. Your place where laws can be defined on your own "opinion" doesn't exist on Earth.
    5
  334. 5
  335. 5
  336. 5
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339. 5
  340. 5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344. 5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. 5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 5
  361. 5
  362. 5
  363. 5
  364. 5
  365. 5
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373. 5
  374. 5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377. 5
  378. 5
  379. 5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. 5
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 5
  387. 5
  388. 5
  389. 5
  390. 5
  391. 5
  392. 5
  393. 5
  394. 5
  395. 5
  396. 5
  397. 5
  398. 5
  399. 5
  400. 5
  401. 5
  402. 5
  403. 5
  404. 5
  405. 5
  406. 5
  407. 5
  408. 5
  409. 5
  410. 5
  411. 5
  412. 5
  413. 5
  414. 5
  415. 4
  416. 4
  417. 4
  418. 4
  419. 4
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422. 4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. 4
  428. 4
  429. 4
  430. She yelled 4 lies in a 1 minute span. 0:05, swath are drowning,it's a plant, not human and it's due to the flood, why don't you build a better flood treatment system. Floods happen every year, somes worse then the others. 2005, 2006,2001. So what? Banning all airplanes gonna stop the flood? 0:13 towns that will never recover or come back? This is another lie, what Ocasio miss about science is that after a period of time, the flood will stop, that's how they got through Katrina, apparently she doesn't know much. And when the flood went down, if applied, her deal would destroy any chance of rebuilding, you can't rebuild farms or buy machines because those things emissions carbon. So yeah, nice hypocrisy. 01:01 The kids from Bronx don't suffer from asthma due to carbon, if she knows again, science, carbon emission went to the atmosphere, they do suffer from dirty living environment, and they will continue once most of the parents are out of work because her "deal" eliminate cars. And like how she removed jobs from New York, again, nice hypocrisy. 01:07 , wow, just 6 seconds apart, the lead water crisis in Flint, it's due to poor water treatment. Lack of money, you use lead pipes to do it, that's why there is lead. But her deal will probably bankrupt the city, therefore making the problem even worse. They can't build new pipes anymore, because she will ban steel. Now that is again, hypocrisy. Does anybody who support her actually know anything? Go back to school, small time troll
    4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. 4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437. 4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 4
  447. 4
  448. 4
  449. 4
  450. 4
  451.  @Reedskiii  But that compensation is never fully equal to the time they have lost, and certainly, if a person is wrongly executed, their family can also be compensated. The fact that risk happens in everything, pal, it happens with driving, diving, flying. Even imprisoning people have risks, and I don't know where you get the 4% number from, that is insane. There is no data on the nonsense 4% number. https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230/tab-article-info I suspect you get that 4% fictional number from these sites. 4% doesn't mean 4% people are executed wrongfully, it means that 4% of people being convicted to death penalty have been deferred to other means of punishment, while 1.6% are exonerated and released, they generated the extra 2.4% by lying about how if the person is no longer under death row, then it must be false conviction, this is definitely a lie. Because even if you're no longer under death row, the factor can not be solely contributed because you didn't commit the crime, it could be due to you cutting a deal and testify in other cases. They indicate that because they're no longer facing death row, then people wouldn't try as hard to solve their case. That is correct, but unfortunately, that is also correct to every other inmates in the system. So your number of 4% false conviction, that is wrong. The actual number of false conviction is 1.6%, and the number of false executed people is even less, because the wrongly convicted people shall be released if their cases can be proven wrong. Like I say, risks happens in everything, and the risk of wrongly execution here is not 4%, pal, don't lie about it. It's much lower and the people accept that risk. If you don't accept it, go vote, other people voted against you, game over.
    4
  452. 4
  453. 4
  454. 4
  455. 4
  456. 4
  457. 4
  458. 4
  459. 4
  460. 4
  461. 4
  462. 4
  463. 4
  464. 4
  465. 4
  466. 4
  467. 4
  468. 4
  469. 4
  470. 4
  471. 4
  472. 4
  473. 4
  474. 4
  475. 4
  476. 4
  477. 4
  478. 4
  479. 4
  480. 4
  481. 4
  482. 4
  483. 4
  484. 4
  485. 4
  486. 4
  487. 4
  488. 4
  489. 4
  490. 4
  491. 4
  492. 4
  493. 4
  494. 4
  495. 4
  496. 4
  497. 4
  498. 4
  499. 4
  500. 4
  501. 4
  502. 4
  503. 4
  504. 4
  505. 4
  506. 4
  507. 4
  508. 4
  509. 4
  510. 4
  511. 4
  512. 4
  513. 4
  514. 4
  515. 4
  516. 4
  517. 4
  518. 4
  519. 4
  520. 4
  521. 4
  522. 4
  523. 4
  524. 4
  525. 4
  526. 4
  527. 4
  528. 4
  529. 4
  530. 4
  531. 4
  532. 4
  533. 4
  534. 4
  535. 4
  536. 4
  537. 4
  538. 4
  539. 4
  540. 4
  541. 4
  542. 4
  543. 4
  544. 4
  545. 4
  546. 4
  547. 4
  548. 4
  549. 4
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. +88feji, No you are confused, pal. That's not how it work. The foundation of the Declaration of Independence stated that humans are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. The right to live, the right of liberty and the right to pursuit happiness. By your definition that we don't consider those rights as endowed by the creator but it's negotiated between human society, you're also defying the claim that all men are created equal. If that's the basis, then because society differs everywhere, as such there was no negotiable term between the Romans and their slaves because they're in different societies, as in there was no negotiation between the white people and the black slaves. But we did came to a consent that those people should be treated like people, not because they have power over us or that they can endanger us. Our survival instinct would be to keep them low as slaves. We gave them rights because we chose to believe that humans are special creatures and the word life gave us rights that we have to respect. Get that pal? Your logic is flawed, and there you're totally wrong. And about that last claim, you're in a delusional bubble where you think science is the absolute base of society, it's not, kid. Science can only be deemed valid if it has the approval of the community, that's a firm base to say that any piece of science that defy the community is no longer valid as science. There are "science" defying gay people, deemed them as diseases, and need to be eliminate, those "science", got rejected, and now is said not being science, but what is the base to confirm that those science are wrong? Let me tell you, there isn't any except the human understanding of moral. There's no such thing claiming that homosexuality is a normal variation of nature, there are a lot of things to say that it's unnatural, but we rejected those things because in our society, we gave them the right to exist as humans, not as a product of nature. So you're way over your head, go back to school, kid and learn something. Get one thing straight kid, there are countless things that science do not know, you claim to know them but you don't , it's not absolute, there are variations, there is randomness, it's all theoretical up high, so stick to what you can define. Because if you keep claiming absolute in things that you're uncertain of, and have no proof to back it, you're no longer considered logical, you're delusional.
    3
  634. 3
  635. @Liam Like I pointed out in another reply,that number 4% is wrong to the utmost extent. They took a 1.6% exoneration rate of death row inmates and raise to 4% by assuming that inside the pool of death row inmates which were changed to life sentencing or such, there are still innocent people. This is true, but those people are no longer on death row, so the obvious rate for false conviction here is the same as any other prisoner serving a non-death row sentence. And that is a risk we have to take, unless you want to abolish prison due to the imperfection of the system. I'd prefer no prison at all if I had committed a crime, but sorry, that's now how it works, that is why you don't commit crimes. People who run gangs in prison lives a fairly mundane life, it's not comfortable, but it's infinitely better than their victims, their victims are usually dead. Like I pointed out, that 4% number is a lie, the best you can get to is 1.6% of inmates being released after proven innocent, it has nothing to do with the rate of wrongfully executed prisoners, there might be some, in history, you can pointed out 8 cases. And that's out of nearly 16000 execution. So the risk here is much smaller than the false number. And you're also ignoring the consequences of having an unfitting punishment towards a crime. If a criminal know that he can't die killing all sorts of people, in the case of desperation, why wouldn't he kill a bunch of people? He'll still live, still get to meet his family and such,in prison there are gangs, friends, maybe. All these factors has to be considered. Whether the danger of having small rate of wrongfully executed people or the danger of having an unfitting punishment for a crime is bigger. That is up to vote, if you don't like it, vote against it. Other people voted against you, game over. World has imperfections, people accepted this imperfection, you don't, that's your problem. You haven't made an convincing enough argument for people to accept your idea.
    3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. @WolframaticAlpha America overplayed their dealt hands. In the 1940s and the 1980s, America was booming, and then you got all Bill Clintony and you fell into a trap of providing countless social services without thinking about what you're doing. You will continuously spend more than you ever capable of recoup, serving a gigantic number of overly privileged, unproductive people and you will burn. You're not taking on debt a small amount at a time, whether the amount of debt is small or big depends on your capability of paying it back. In this current state, all debt is unrepayable, America is filled with a generation of losers, the wealth gap in America is widening faster than ever, not because the rich is "stealing", it's because the poor is so damn unproductive. While the Japanese, due to their culture, they have maintained a stable population of productive people, sane people. People in Japan know that they have to work to get what the things they're using, so are the people in Norway, so are the people in Germany. Even the ones in England are more responsible than America. The debt doesn't matter, the question is how you're going to deal with that debt. Your population is incompetent. Your politicians are campaigning on the grounds of "social justices" and environmental protection make belief, because none of their "electorates" care or understand fiscal responsibilities. Society doesn't just progress onward automatically, in America, it has regressed backwards. America Supremacy is almost over with this trend, you no longer produce breakthrough technology necessary for the world to put up with you, yeah, Amazon and Facebook are huge but those are not necessary technologies, those companies are big due to their large number of users, not because of their "proprietary tech", even the Chinese can create a worthy rival. And with the rising of countries gaining more profits through cooperation in services sector instead of warfare, it shall render the American Military useless. Blame yourself. The difference between America and Japan is that the Japanese public can endure hardship. Americans not so much, the freedom to be anything in America had made the people choose to be stupid. It's still their choice, but they'll reap the consequences. It's very amusing actually.
    3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. First of all, the CNN guy didn't read the report, or he's playing dumb to brushing up Cortez's ass. Anybody who actually read and still claim to be "supporting" of it is plain lying, and it's incredibly pathetic that none of you morons could actually post something to prove your nonsensical point. Do it, give out a few examples, try to talk to the point, moron. I'll gladly dedicate my time educating a bunch of unemployed idiots. Bring it on, if you have the balls to put your dignity where your mouths are. Give out some points on how that stupid plan of medicare for all could be paid for. Except for that one study that did not say "medicare for all will save us 2 trillions". It pointed out due to the new "sufficiency" created through drug distribution by the government, 2 trillions will be saved. Unfortunately, the report didn't mention on what will differs from the current situation. If medicare for all is applied, in order to achieve that fantasy saving of 2 trillions, all American citizens must comply to that unrealistic program, destroying the free market, insurance companies, and probably the entire federal budget credibility, because to achieve that 32 trillion dollars mark over 10 years, the tax rate would have to be doubled immediately and then still have to be raised one more time, want to know why, read the report. And again, inequality when the top 1% will again, pay for more free stuff for idiots. Here's a simple logic, if the poor can't do anything to save their own asses, do you expect them to do anything when all of their living is paid for by somebody else? There, fact check, that, you have all the time you need. Give out some replies, idiot. If you can't, I suggest that you stop believing in this delusional "Latinas" or whatever the term she uses to attract unemployed people, and get a job.
    3
  714. 3
  715. 3
  716. 3
  717. 3
  718. 3
  719. 3
  720. 3
  721. 3
  722. 3
  723. 3
  724. 3
  725. 3
  726. 3
  727. 3
  728. 3
  729. 3
  730. 3
  731. 3
  732. 3
  733. 3
  734. 3
  735. 3
  736. 3
  737. 3
  738. 3
  739. 3
  740. 3
  741. 3
  742. 3
  743. 3
  744. 3
  745. 3
  746. 3
  747. 3
  748. 3
  749. 3
  750. 3
  751. 3
  752. 3
  753. 3
  754. 3
  755. 3
  756. 3
  757. 3
  758. 3
  759. 3
  760. 3
  761. 3
  762. 3
  763. 3
  764. 3
  765. 3
  766. 3
  767. 3
  768. 3
  769. 3
  770. 3
  771. 3
  772. 3
  773. 3
  774. 3
  775. 3
  776. 3
  777. ​ @jackdaniels3573  Again, delusional fanboy, Tesla didn't invent AC. That was Faraday, Tesla only invented an induction motor that allows AC, because normal motors can't handle AC. Are you stupid or a troll? Alternating Current is not superior, the risk of death is very much there, you want to check? Why don't you put your finger into a power socket? Idiot. Also, there would be no radio, no AC, no wireless communication if it hadn't been for Faraday, Maxwell, kid. So again, your stupid logic crumbles again, if the current day inventions are nothing without Tesla, the same credit of Tesla invention is due to Faraday and Maxwell, how dumb can you be? There wouldn't be any electricity distribution if Edison hadn't pioneered in inventing electrical appliances, without the bulb, nobody would've cared for electricity,, no AC or DC that matters, so therefore, no radio, no internet, nothing. Your pathetic logic, however it applies, shall on crumble on itself, fanboy, because it conflicts with reality. Tesla was an important character, Edison was also an important inventor, actually Edison was much more important, because without the bulb, the electrical test ahead makes by Edison, there would be no need for electricity, therefore Tesla invention would've been useless. That plus Edison also invented the telephone, the principle behind the recording camera, and also Alkaline batteries, which is the pioneer way of storing energy for the next 80-90 years. So your logic fails anyway, kid, can you stop being a troll?
    3
  778. 3
  779. 3
  780. 3
  781. 3
  782. 3
  783. 3
  784. 3
  785. 3
  786. 3
  787. 3
  788. 3
  789. 3
  790. 3
  791. 3
  792. 3
  793. 3
  794. 3
  795. 3
  796. 3
  797. 3
  798. 3
  799. 3
  800. 3
  801. 3
  802. 3
  803. 3
  804. 3
  805. 3
  806. 3
  807. 3
  808. 3
  809. 3
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839.  @kuroru69  It is a lot more accurate than you think, pal. It's definitely a lot more accurate than psychiatrist studies. Again, there are tiers to the accuracy level. And psychiatrist studies ranked dead last, along with other make belief science. The first question you proposed is wrong. Because that definition is based on speculative judgement, not by measurable numbers. "Depression is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest." Inside that definition, there's the word "disorder" which is totally subjective because we don't know what is the correct order of mental state. Again, the brain is infinitely more complex than other organism. And it also contains the word "persistent". You can not tell how long it is for something to be considered persistent, and it also contain the words sadness. What categorize as sadness and what isn't. If the definition of the thing is not even clear, no studies about it can be accurate. A simple example of the stark contrast of accuracy is the definition of a meter in physics. A meter is a distance traveled by the speed of light in a vacuum over a certain x time interval. Accurate, easy to understand, easy to measure. See the difference? Psychiatrist study is not completely useless, but it's insanely inaccurate, that's why it's much easier to study, it's so vague that there can be 10 different answers to one case that varies based on opinions that are equally invalid, and that's a no no. Even with theoretical physicist, that's never the case, if something is proven correct, it's admitted to be correct, however, there maybe unknowns that nobody dare to claim understanding over.
    2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873.  @HurricaneGaming509  If you can't get both UBI and Healthcare, then what's the point of giving UBI? You remove people's benefits so the people will have to replace it if they don't want to die, and most of them will not use the money to replace it. They rather have a drink then saving up to go the doctor. It's a zero sum game if you remove people's social program to give them the money that was going to the social program. It's immoral because when the people waste that money, you'll have no choice but to leave them to die because you don't have any money left on well fare. Where's your math for that generating more? You give the people's UBI only pay for the extra cost on products that are going to the VAT. zero sum game, study. If you're claiming that people will earn more than what they pay then your sum would be in the negative because you don't generate more money in the VAT but you're giving more what you get. Study. And again, marijuana decriminalize, and opioids? You'r giving people money and the same time allow them to use drugs that cost money and bring them harm? Wow, that is just basic math of stupidity. Go back to school, if you generate new source of income by giving people harmful products to buy, they will use the money on those products and not on themselves. Did you think before you type that? And opioids being legal? What's next, crystal meth, next we should decriminalize cocaine, right, because of what? People responsibility to themselves? Pal, go back to school, you're way over your head.
    2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980.  @БогданБеркут  To simplify it for you, here's where you got wrong. 1. There was never a group of people called "Ukrainians" or whatever words that were totally separate from the Russians. Literally never. 2. "Eastern Ukrainians", "Russian", "Belarussian" all started from the people of Kievan Rus, which is the ancestor of of the Russian people today, or at least the most powerful branch of that state becomes Tsardom of Russia then Russian Empire. So again, it makes no sense to claim that there's such a thing as "Ukrainian", because they don't have a separate distinctive origin or culture. Like how Texans are different from New Yorkers but they are all Americans. 3. The mentioning of a word in some documents literally means nothing if there's no gigantic substantial change to the people living there, their governance, their culture, etc. Now there can be a group of very vocal separatist living at what's called Eastern Ukraine today back in the 19th, 18th, maybe even 15th century. But those are small individuals and doesn't represent one bit the status of the population there back then. 4. And furthermore, what you seemed to ignore is the artificial nature of what you called "Ukraine" today, because we traced back in history, that region of territory was again, never wholed or ruled by just one group of people. Because the Eastern is part of the Russian Empire, but the Western part was part of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and some was part of the Austria Hungary Empire. So they can't be one group of people if throughout history, their territory was never whole. It makes no sense, homie. You can't make a group of people out of thin air, homie. The Russian Empire Census doesn't list them as Ukrainians in a separate manner, like the way they listed Hungarians or Polish. But what's called "Ukranian" is called "Little Russians", it literally proves that they're not 2 distinctive group of people.
    2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062. 2
  1063. @Liam Multiple people will say that they won't commit crime so that they won't be facing any punishment. The death penalty is essential, pal, according to people who vote for it, it is essential. The determination whether something is essential or not is from a personal standpoint, and they put it to a vote. There are still innocent people being jailed but that's the imperfections here. There are innocent people dying due to driving, people have accepted that. The underlying facts here are not facts. Those are your assumptions. Whether something is "essential" is your assumption. Because it's essential to what? People say that it's essential to maintain a low crime rate on certain behavior. In Asian countries, the death penalty is applied widely to drug dealings, and of course, they stop the drug dealings there. Sure there are drugs, but people were way too afraid to commit the crime. It doesn't completely stop it but it reduces it much more than in America. So whether the death penalty is essential is due to the measurements of each individuals. You are thinking with emotions, not facts. Driving kills innocent people, prison jails innocent people. Electricity itself can kill people. Like I pointed out, it is a risk. Your entire argument relies on your opinion of the death penalty not being essential. You based this assumption on what? Essential to what? Certain people say that it is essential to maintain order and reduce crime. Death penalty is a punishment, pretty much like prison itself, but on a much severe level. How do you distinguish prison and death penalty? To certain people, people who have been raped in prison, death might be the better solution than life sentence. It's all subjective when it comes to adjective of the matter, pal. And to determine whether a certain standard be applied, people vote. You say it's not essential, other people say it's essential. And other people vote for it, you voted against them. They win, you loose, that's life. Let's admit the fact that you have no basis to say that the death penalty is non essential. Because it's only non essential to you. To Asian countries, it's very essential. Who are you to say that they're wrong? They say that abortion is a disgusting act, who are they to say that the US is wrong. There are subjective facts, and there are your opinion. Whether something is essential or not is opinion based. To you, food security might be essential, but to a Budhist, only minimum to survive food is enough, they prefer quiet time of enlightenment than food security. Who are you to say that they're wrong? Get down from your high horse and get back to reality pal.
    2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097.  @Andrew-it7fb  Stimulus bill in March 2021? Kid, nobody on the Republican side was in favor of that. A much smaller version of it, maybe. But not that monstrosity. Every products need a supply chain. So does the US Government doesn't have control over policies regarding their own domestic supply chain? No tax breaks for the suppliers? No policies regarding reopening? Anything? Or is it, the economy doesn't depend on anything the Government does? Get real, kid. Food prices started going up last year, that's reasonable, why is it still going up this year. Ever question that? Trump didn't mishandle Covid, in case you hadn't noticed, each states have their own regulation regarding to Covid patients, that's why in New York, pervert Cuomo killed like 10000 seniors patients? Trump and all of the governors all mishandled Covid. The ones handled Covid correctly in 2020 is China and Vietnam, and there's only one way to that. Intruding on freedom. It's only because of Trump that there are vaccines within a year, that is a miracle caused by expedited process, said by everybody. So pal, you don't want people to starve, you give them food. If you give them free money, you devalue the money, because they can use that money to do all sort of things, affecting all sorts of aspects. Learn some math. Improve supply chain with infrastructure bill. That's your reasoning? Improving roads , bridges and waterways are improving the supply chain? Do you understand basic English or you're just spewing out everything you read from the title hoping to razzle dazzle idiots? Not going to work in real life, kid. Improving infrastructure is called a routine schedule, it creates temporal jobs that goes away immediately after you done improving the infrastructure. It doesn't solve anything, it's called short term drugs. You dummies would love it but it's because you're stupid. That infrastructure is not going to lower the price of groceries or gas, or anything in particular. It will improve the roads that you don't have to travel on because you can't afford the gas, or a meal outside because of rising prices. So yeah, Biden did nothing substantial. There's no policy to help the "supply chain", no tax exemption for necessary products, no improving negotiations with gas and energy company. And don't forget, last month he just funded terrorist with top of the line military equipment. Go back to school, children, this must be blowing your mind. Covid is over, pal. Restrictions have been lifted, yet, for half a year, Monsieur Biden gives people more money to work than not work. What could've gone wrong during those months? Economic impacts don't happen instantaneously, genius. Everything that happens today is due to the polices made over the last year, a long enough timespan for the policies to have an impact. Inflation of now is impacted by this "relief" bill that Biden signed. He doesn't have a clue what the hell he did. More people get paid for doing nothing while not much is going wrong, companies start to feel as if they're product is undervalued, they raise the prices in response. Human sympathy has it's limits, one year is enough, dummy Biden extended for another year, and now when the relief bill stops, the companies will wait for about another half a year to lower the prices, or they won't lower the prices and consumers can go to hell. All thanks to Biden. He's in charge, if Trump is in charge, he would blamed for the inflation, like Trump was blamed for Covid in the early days. But at least Trump made an achievement in the vaccine? What is Biden's achievement except an infrastructure bill that has to happen every 10 years? Abandoning Afghanistan allies?
    2
  1098.  @Andrew-it7fb  Really? No idea of what I'm talking about. Tell me, where is this massive study of the economic status in this country, including details of all the impactful events of the past years that deliver a reasonably precise results? Or everything you have is a sad claim or "conclusion" that nobody can prove or verify in anyways? Of course states that ended the unemployment payments still have issues, they just ended last September and now it's the consequences for extending it to September in March. The lack of clarity of why is the stimulus given and the purpose of it is to help people in need, not for people in need to abuse it must have played some part in it. Here's a clue, kid, food and products that you buy now were made months ago, the policies you made then affect the prices right now. So you need to stop that "extension" in March, so that the affects it has on the economy is understandable, that it's actually caused by Covid. You've prolonged the time, and now you're ruined, at least for the rest of the year. It's a spiral you can't escape. Give people money, they don't work, they don't work, price rises, you need to keep giving people money. That's why you economists are idiots. Lack of logical thinking or self improving. You lie, make mistakes and get away with it. Like the example above, you give somebody morphine after the surgery, that's fine. You continue to give them morphine after they're healthy, even if only for a few months and then you stop, shockingly they have already became addicts.
    2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198.  @jasonswitzer1748  It's elementary, darling. Those 4 regions are the ones with heavily Russian origin population, and they are the coastline of Ukraine, which if it's in Russia posession shall eliminate all kind of massive weapon transportation to Ukraine, it's another security measure. Russia does not view those Russian speaking Ukrainian as Ukrainian, darling. Russia view them as Russian, living in rightfully Russian territory but was mistakenly given to this country Ukraine at the fall of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union was formed and when it falls, over 280 million people has lived in it from 1922 to 1991, nearly 70 years. Investments are made, rellocations are done, all those people treated the USSR as their home, the dissolution of the USSR failed to take care of such problems because they were too occupied economically, and that is a mistake. People who live in this in this country Ukraine, especially in those 4 regions, that is their land, their home, and they don't want to be Ukrainian, they speak Russia, they have Russian culture, their grandparents, their father, their mothers were Russian. Russia view it as a mistake of history that those 4 regions were given away to a counntry who's currently trying to opress their Russian origin. Your mistake is thinking that those 4 region are of Ukraine because it's drawn on a map. Russia disagree with you and they are going to take it back, they already have. The US did some serious bad stuff, and they benefited greatly from it, it might have lost their status on the world stage but that's very trivial to the physical benefits it gained the US. And China, India, Russia are sick of it. We do not live in a world where the US are the supreme leader, other countries want to have their say and act in their own interest as well. It's quite elementary. What the US did isn't considered good or bad by Russia, China and India, darling. It's only considered acting upon US interest, and now Russia is acting on Russia interest.
    2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. Konstantin Kissin and the delusional bunch. Mr Kissin who never actually grew up or experienced adulthood in any central part of the Soviet Union or Russia whatsoever, as well as never studied the country, it's history, it's current societal situation deeply at all, pretend as if he is an expert on the matter of the country because he has an accent and a Russian ancestry. He never underwent any kind of proper education, and by what he said, it's very clear that he hasn't even done any proper research. He lacks the knowledge of the history of the region, as well as knowledge of international law, especially it's underlying principles, he also lack the knowledge of the actions committed by the West to totally violated those principles. These facts are easily found by listening to people who has first hand experience and frankly way more qualified than him, for example Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheinmer. Mr Kissin has this delusional sense of logic, claiming that because he has a distant family living in "Eastern Ukraine", then it automatically means his family experience in a small city or town is equivalent of the entire picture of a gigantic region the size of England. Including regions which are at war, a fact that is recognized by countless experts and in fact, countries. Specifically France and Germany when they insure the Minsk and Minsk 2 agreement, if there wasn't a war, why was there an agreement? Mr Kissin's severe lack of understanding or the apperance of it either stem from the intentional lying that he is forced to make in order to get a quick buck promoting his channel towards an equally delusional audience, or from his gigantic delusional attitude, granting himself expert on stuff he know very little about, taking his own words as proof even though, again, he knows very little about what he's talking about. He lied to himself and then he bought his own lies as if they're the truth, a delusional and dangerous mindset that is shared by an overwhelming majority of his audience. Radicals that don't listen to reasons.
    2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. Nope, there are very big reasons to do so, because unlike YouTube, which is a free platform, a scientific venue is a publisher. Your work is reviewed and then judged by a board of editor. And those disappointing quality of those articles reflect the competency of board of editor. Even the most esteemed ones of any business, there are full of holes inside of them. Massive holes, and people just follow the game because that's the game. Try doing real science, you'll see. Most of those articles are extremely useless. One can post their methodology and work online for everybody to see, but once you've submitted yourself for review, you've put yourself into the situation where as if you're begging for the board approval. The board can very much be wrong, they're humans and humans make mistakes, and those journals always make a lot of mistakes. Once you've started doing it, you'll understand. If you don't understand that designed vagueness in the industry, you're not doing it properly. Real science stands whether it is published by a magazine, a tabloid, a journal or even on a website. Show some respect. The scientific industry works like this, a researcher send a paper to journal where his contacts are editors, and then such journal is ranked by another one of his contacts. It's a gigantic circle of corruption. It's like investment banking but with more complicated issues and a higher proclaimed ethical stance. Now within such circle of corruption, sometimes a miracle can occur. However, there are also sometimes notable results, not yet to the levels of miracles are ignored. Once you've published inside an article, you can't post it for free.
    2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300.  @josephhoward4697  Yeah, both you and your friends made serious mistakes, pal. Because your friend cash out before they gain back their money. If they're buying the dip, then if it crashes more, then they have to wait longer until it bounce back up, eventually it will bounce back up. If they listen to Mr Market and sell just because everybody else is selling and price is going down then they have no idea what they're doing. And neither did you know what you're doing. There's absolutely no reason for the stock to rise in the last 2 years. You got lucky, pal. You bought the bubble while it is expanding and seemingly cash out before it pops. That's not skill, that's pure luck. Because you still have no idea why it went up or why it went down. You just gambled and got lucky. Sane People time the bottom not to win immediately, that's where your friends did wrong. You time the bottom to maximize profits in the long run. Had your friends hold it until it recovers, they would have made serious profits. As long as they choose solid stocks, they don't need to "cut loses" because those companies will last far beyond into the future. So that's where you and your friends go wrong. Both you and your friends have no idea what you're doing. You bought on the way up, it's called FOMO, you got lucky it didn't pop in your face. Enjoy the money because if you keep doing that, you won't make any more of it. Your friends cut loses quickly because they listen to the market and follows the crowd. Different outcome doesn't mean one side was correct and the other side was wrong. If two people both gambled, even if one person won and the other person lost, both of them are idiots.
    2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. Alan Gonzalez No, it has not, where's that confirmation, if you actually read the Koch Brothers research, you would see that it doesn't indicate whether single payer system is cheaper or not. It indicates the total amount of money that would be spent on it in order to achieve minimal standard. It doesn't mention quality, although it did mention a brief conclusion that in order for that plan to work, we'll have to double the tax rate and then people's savings will have to be replenish at some rate to pay for it because perfect scenarios do not happen. That money saved up, the fantasize "2 trillions" are 2 trillions in the total cost, which doesn't mean that we'll have 2 trillions more in the federal budget. It means that the entire amount of money that will be spent on healthcare by all sources, rich people paying for the poor, the lazy, and corporate taxes will also have to be raised, the entire sum will be reduced by 2 trillions, even though it clearly means stealing, put a massive postpone button on our economy, probably unemployment rates raising because corporate can't make that much money in order to gain profit s, and low quality healthcare plus less medical discovery. Here's an advice kid, when you don't understand something, think about first and then type. "Bills come due", it means that if you laze around, getting drunk at 8a.m, there are consequences, who do you think those 40000 people are, are they geniuses, are they hard workers, or are they hobos, beggers, drug addicts, alcoholics? If you want the society to take care of them, maybe you should go and do that, join the Peace Corp, go plant a tree, don't force others to take care of you. I paid enough to charity at places that actually need them such as Africa, and I don't want to pay anything to people with unlimited potential and choose to waste it. It's America, go get a job at 7 eleven and live a life, kid.
    2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401. 2
  1402. 2
  1403. 2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414. 2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. 2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 2
  1424. 2
  1425. 2
  1426. 2
  1427. 2
  1428. 2
  1429. 2
  1430. 2
  1431. 2
  1432. 2
  1433. 2
  1434. 2
  1435. 2
  1436. 2
  1437. 2
  1438. 2
  1439. 2
  1440. 2
  1441. 2
  1442. 2
  1443. 2
  1444. 2
  1445. 2
  1446. 2
  1447. 2
  1448. 2
  1449. 2
  1450. 2
  1451. 2
  1452. 2
  1453. 2
  1454. 2
  1455. 2
  1456. 2
  1457. 2
  1458.  @cadicamo8720  You make a few mistakes in that very short reply that only a very slow and uninformed individual can make, but that's not surprising. 1. Just because you're nuclear super power doesn't mean you can't be provoked, especially by another nuclear superpower. Example: US being provoked by Cuba in combination with the Soviet in 1963, or just right before that when the Soviet was provoked by the US in combination with Turkey. 2. The closest form of fascism we have is of course Nazism, and the only place in the world that harbors active Nazi is Ukraine. You have the report from the New York Times about Ukrainian and Nazis, you have the Nazis emblem on Ukraine military elite forces, you have their President literally applauding an actual WW2 Nazis, which Poland is asking to be extradited. The Canada parliament joined in so maybe the second most Nazified place on Earth is Canada. 3. The only Imperialist country with an massive obession of invading and dominating people and territories whom it literally has no relation to or jurisdiction upon is the United States. In the last 20 years, the examples are invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, regime change operation in Lybia, regime change operation in Syria, current supplying of arms in a genocide in Gaza. Of course this is accompanied by 800 military bases around the world, all of them on foreign soil , including a few illegal military bases on the soil of countries that directly declare that the bases are illegal such as Iraq and Syria. How about grabbing a book once in a while, or read books digitally, either case it will help you.
    2
  1459.  @OldLizard  1. You can't say that there are more Nazis in Ukraine than anywhere else on Earth is because you're uninformed and kind of slow. You literally have an official military unit of them in their military and their official national hero is literally a known Nazi collaborator, January 1st is Bandera day in Ukraine. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is fact. Literally no European country has a national hero that collaborated with the Nazis in WW2 except for Ukraine. Literally none. Like I said, go grab a book. 2. You definitely have never travelled around the world, because seemingly you think the world actually means what you called "the West", which is less than 20% of global landmass and less than 15% of global population. ICJ Court ruling of 15 judges from 15 different country reaches a conclusion that there is possible grounds for the conclusion that Israel is comitting a genocide and orders Israel to file more detailed report to the court. Within those 15 judges, include 1 Israeli appointed judge, and even that judge ruled with the 14 country majority. Right now, the ICJ is also hearing a case where over 50 countries is giving their argument about Israel illegal occupation of Palestine, and among those 50 countries, about 45 to 46 of them, consisting at least 30% of global population, and consist of 85% of the population of the 50 countries speaking. Those overwhelming majority of countries recognize that Israel is committing illegal occupation of Palestine territory, meaning Israel has zero right of self defense against Palestinian attack. This is simple logic. Are you one of the flat earthers who think that if you go beyond Western Europe then you'll fall over the edge of the world? Therefore you just ignore the overwhelming majority of global population?
    2
  1460. 2
  1461. 2
  1462. 2
  1463. 2
  1464. 2
  1465. 2
  1466. 2
  1467. 2
  1468. 2
  1469. 2
  1470. 2
  1471. 2
  1472. 2
  1473. 2
  1474. 2
  1475. 2
  1476. 2
  1477. 2
  1478. 2
  1479. 2
  1480. 2
  1481. 2
  1482. 2
  1483. 2
  1484. 2
  1485. 2
  1486. 2
  1487. 2
  1488. 2
  1489. 2
  1490. 2
  1491. 2
  1492.  @DogshitArgument  He seems well-read because you don't read, buddy. You claim something is out of context, that's an opinion, not even a good opinion because you don't give any supporting arguments. All those judges disagreed, if you take a poll, people disagree. Furthermore, those ICJ quotes that Burnelli brought up isn't even the best quotes of the case. The emphasizeds quotes are the "Amalek" quotes of Netanyahu, "No water, no food, no electricity" quote by Gallant, and the Amalek chant by Israeli soldiers inside Gaza. Obviously you wouldn't know about any of this because you don't read. But that's not something I'd be proud of. I mean you intentionally took 3 weakest quote out of like 84 quotes, including very serious ones and pretend as if those 3 represent the entirety of the 84 If you remove those 3, there's 81 left. And you can't even remove those 3. Because whatever justification you can give for a quote, the impact and the nature of that quote can be used for people to conclude about your intent. In the court of law, even if the defendant defense himself by saying that quote is out of context, the jury, the judge can still say that, you claim that but we don't believe you. And in this case, the jury dismissed Israel argument entirely that those quotes are all out of context. It is an indictment, pal. Before the trial, there's preliminary hearings. If you have no case, the case is dismissed. If there's a trial, it means that the case is serious, this is basic legal procedures. And of course you wouldn't know it because you don't read. Buddy, you need to grow up and go back to school.
    2
  1493. 2
  1494. 2
  1495. 2
  1496. 2
  1497. 2
  1498. 2
  1499. 2
  1500. 2
  1501. 2
  1502. 2
  1503. 2
  1504. 2
  1505. 2
  1506. 2
  1507. 2
  1508. 2
  1509. 2
  1510. 2
  1511. 2
  1512. 2
  1513. 2
  1514. 2
  1515. 2
  1516. 2
  1517. 2
  1518. 2
  1519. 2
  1520. 2
  1521. 2
  1522. 2
  1523. 2
  1524. 2
  1525. 2
  1526. 2
  1527. 2
  1528. 2
  1529. 2
  1530. 2
  1531. 2
  1532. 2
  1533. 2
  1534. 2
  1535. 2
  1536. 2
  1537. 2
  1538. 2
  1539. 2
  1540. 2
  1541. 2
  1542. 2
  1543. 2
  1544. 2
  1545. 2
  1546. 2
  1547. 2
  1548. 2
  1549. 2
  1550. 2
  1551. 2
  1552. 2
  1553. 2
  1554. 2
  1555. 2
  1556. 2
  1557. 2
  1558. 2
  1559. 2
  1560. 2
  1561. 2
  1562. 2
  1563. 2
  1564. 2
  1565. 2
  1566. 2
  1567. 2
  1568. 2
  1569. 2
  1570. 2
  1571. 2
  1572. 2
  1573. 2
  1574. ​ David Williams  You have no argument against any fact anybody have given out, so are you a troll or a moron? Either way, go back to school, kid. Here, UBI is stealing money, you're giving money to people who don't work by taking the majority from the people who do work, and your excuse for that is because their jobs are being replaced. Now that is really stupid, when somebody is out of work, you find them new job, not give them free money, assistance might come, but need to be returned, otherwise it is a handout. Because if they don't have jobs, they don't pay tax, the money they're given is not like stockholders privilege, they haven't put any money in for equity. If people don't create values anymore, taxing tech companies will not make any money, they don't have jobs, they can't pay, they can't buy stuff, tech companies will fail, aka, your taxing will not work. Your big idea is to change them from workers in storage housing into what? Nurses? Painters? Artists? All of the above requires a market, which the people worked in storage housing used to be and now if the market is gone, or severely gone undersized, those jobs value will also decrease. Now I get your intention, it's good, you need to figure out a way to adapt to change, the unfortunate thing is that your way is stupid. If giving people free money can make more money, they would've done it already, but wait, nobody does it, even socialist countries, because the presumption of it is anti-science. Go back to school, kid.
    2
  1575. 2
  1576. 2
  1577. 2
  1578. 2
  1579. 2
  1580. 2
  1581. 2
  1582. 2
  1583. 2
  1584. 2
  1585. 2
  1586. 2
  1587. 2
  1588. 2
  1589. 2
  1590. 2
  1591. 2
  1592. 2
  1593. 2
  1594. 2
  1595. 2
  1596. 2
  1597. 2
  1598. 2
  1599. 2
  1600. 2
  1601. 2
  1602. 2
  1603. 2
  1604. 2
  1605. 2
  1606.  @Retrostarscream  Hey listen, kid. I know you're desperate but just don't be a troll here. I just refuted all your sources as in pointed how you're lying about the source. Those aren't sources, those are you lying of what the source actually means. 1. According to the McGhan story and Donald Trump telling him to deny the story of The President ordering to terminate the Special Counsel. This entire interpretation of Mueller and yours is based on a slippery slope definition. The definition of obstruction. Obstruction means perverting of justice, and you need to prove that the action of telling McGhan to tell a version of the story that McGhan doesn't feel comfortable with, or even that McGhan interpreted in an entire different way, therefore leading to misunderstanding of what the meeting is about and what he was told to do, is not related to "justice" at any point. So if The President told his son to say that they served Polish Vodka instead of Russian Vodka would also be obstruction? It relates to the Russian connection, think a bit pal. The detail of whether The President tell Don McGhan to say this or that, doesn't matter at all, because what he say, is not related in anyway to the investigation or any of the charges. That is my analysis to refute that passage of The Mueller Report, you know what this is called, it's called thinking, not just quoting false information like you. 2. That second paragraph you quoted about prosecuting somebody after office. That's just total irrelevant, Mueller there just typed a standard line, announcing himself to have executed his job properly, which is his opinion alone. That statement about " conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available", what, SO IF THE PRESIDENT HAS IMMUNITY AFTER OFFICE THEN THEY WILL NOT CONDUCT A THOROUGH FACTUAL INVESTIGATION? OR IS IT THEY WON'T PRESERVE ANY EVIDENCE? President has no immunity after office, but in order to charge them for the same crime as the crime that has already been investigated, they need to have declared him guilty in the report, Mueller didn't do that, Ken Starr did that, and in that case, if Clinton wasn't acquitted by the Senate, he would've been prosecuted after office. In Trump case, you can't charge him, you have nothing, what crime? You have an example up for suggestion and no conclusion, except for the conclusion that had to be made because of Mueller's incompetency, by Barr saying that he's not guilty. So yeah, they can preserve evidence, there's nothing to charge him. Mueller's words in that paragraph is just basic procedures. 3. Your thesis of Mueller Press Conference, THAT IS HIS FALSE OPINION. KEN STARR DID IT WITH CLINTON, IF MUELLER DIDN'T COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY, HE FAILED TO DO HIS JOBS. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW HE FEEL, THE FACT IS THERE, MUELLER GAVE UP HIS CREDIBILITY WHEN HE REFUSED TO FINISH THE WORK. It doesn't matter how Mr. Incompetent feels , if he can't conclude guilty, by his conscious calling or moral calling or whatever, by the Constitution of the United States, he declared that Donald Trump is innocent, as in how every citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Clear? Pal, stop posting lies that you made up. 4. "The constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing". Again, this is his opinion alone, The Constitution require a different process to remove the President from office, but to ACCUSE, NO IT DOESN'T NEED A DIFFERENT PROCESS TO ACCUSE. DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE FEELS IF THIS IS FAIR OR NOT, THAT IS THE LAW AND THERE'S NO SUCH LAW BAN HIM FROM MAKING A CONCLUSION, HE GAVE UP. So yeah, pal, stop posting lies that you made up. Finally, if you already know that your argument are dumb as hell and you're still typing it because you're trolling, I suggest going back to school, small time troll.
    2
  1607. 2
  1608. 2
  1609. 2
  1610. 2
  1611. 2
  1612. 2
  1613. 2
  1614. 2
  1615. 2
  1616.  @Chris-oz9qx  How do I tell you this simply. Kid, the money spent on transfer is the least of your concern. Player wages, stadium maintenance, those are the fees that you have to pay, despite not getting enough benefits for them. The transfer money can be cut by not doing anymore transfer. But existing player wages have to be paid. Usually those are paid by ticket selling revenue. Are you buying any tickets? Those clubs don't care for the Domestic League revenue, they want a bigger share of the European football revenue. The Super League is created to replace the Champions League, not the Domestic League like Premier League or La Liga. Originally there wasn't any Champions League, they create the Champions League as a way to get more money. The qualification nonsense was originally only the winning team, but they expand the slots because big teams also need qualification to increase the tournament's revenue, despite not being the winning team. The competition changes all the time, each time benefiting the big clubs, because only the big clubs generate revenue. So get down from your high horse of hypocrisy and get back to reality. Clubs are dying, because people can't go to the stadiums, there's nothing you can do about that, so let them live by maximizing the revenue. It's not about you, the new Super League is for the international fans. Football is nothing without fans, well, you are no longer the only fans of football. Fans are everywhere, the fans overseas are demanding this. You might be interested in Burnley vs Manchester United, but we are not.
    2
  1617. 2
  1618. 2
  1619. 2
  1620. 2
  1621. 2
  1622. 2
  1623. 2
  1624. 2
  1625. 2
  1626. 2
  1627. 2
  1628. 2
  1629. 2
  1630. 2
  1631. 2
  1632. 2
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653.  @thebat729  Do you actually watch the movie, pal. The entire movie portrays Lex Luthor motive, which are very much a correct motive. everything inside this speech leads the final sentence. Man can have knowledge with no power, and that's paradoxical. He's frustrated with the people's false perception of what is true greatness, what is true power. How people worship Superman for having these god-like power, how people ignore Lex Luthor, who is the peak of human existence intellectually. He believes Superman is a fraud. The story of the ancient Greeks just leads to how he feels about the world, full of people blinded, just like the Greeks, who somehow believe in a version of good and bad that totally put them in hardships. The idea of kings and queens, of Gods who are able to kill people at will. Look pal, the Greeks believed something incredibly stupid, and there's no basis for their beliefs. Not any known basis that man can recreate, are you really going to say that the man whom children got executed just because the "priest" said so were happy because the "priest" words were the words of the Gods? You truly believe that the level of suffering among the people in ancient Greece were at the same percentage as it is now? That even if the situation is incredibly worse, the same percentage of them still felt content back then as the same percentage that felt content now? Please. To study history, you need to first study human psychology. You suck at that for sure. Pain and suffering existed as long as humans existed. And just because a few texts by a few people claim something that doesn't make it any different. For your information, overwhelming majority of ancient Greece people don't know how to read or write, and their words were not recorded.
    1
  1654.  @thebat729  Lex is right, pal. He's right about Superman. The guy is too dangerous, and he doesn't act on the interest of humanity, the Dark Knight future vision proves it in a way. Lex doesn't believe that Superman will rule the planet, Lex believes that Superman can do that, and that danger is just too much. Watch the movie again, pal. None of what you said make any sense, really. Gods in Greek Mythology did a lot more than gave men tools, they also sort of seduced teenage girls, treat people's life as garbage, require human sacrifice, etc. Keep it real , homie. No, human psychology isn't molded by society, some maybe , but some remains universal throughout all cultures, including the Greeks. Pretty sure the feeling of unfairness existed back then because countless conquests, uprisings, revenge were enacted. The Greeks didn't invent democracy and philosophy, pal. A few excellent individuals among the entire group of people invented those things, and it's not really an effective type of democracy at all. Greek is not the earliest civilization, they might have the earliest recording of philosophical principle, but other civilizations discovered the same thing. But that's besides the point. Overwhelming majority of people in ancient Greeks didn't know how to write or read, they were either farmers or slaves. So study history again, pal. Not understanding the population structures and the overwhelming illiteracy probably makes you not that good of a historian. Zeus wanted to kept humanity in the dark, to kept them worshipping the Gods. And that, by definition, is "unfair".
    1
  1655.  @thebat729  Pal, you make the simplest mistake one can make. You assume that just because a few guys in that ancient society invented some great things, it must mean that the rest of that society was also just as great. That's insane. There's no such thing as "the Greek". The Greeks are composed of countless of individuals in different classes, and pretty sure a lot of them, overwhelming majority of them lived a extreme hardship, and they has a higher probability of feeling sadness and unhappiness than to feel content. They live in fear of dying in the winters and their children can easily die at birth due to poor caring. To assume that there was the same percentage of suffering back at ancient Greece and now in the modern world is insane, it violates certain principle of mathematics. Are you really suggesting that somehow people in Greece are more welcome and accepting of premature death than people now? Please. You can't study history that way, pal. Simply because most of what you're saying are assumptions, to take the words of a few that lasted through texts, trying to use that and deduct the feelings of the entire population. That's stupidity at it's finest. It's impossible to do that now, and it's impossible to do it then. Keep it real, darling. Go study real science, study real history. If a slave in ancient Egypt can write "Save me, God" into the stones when he's in chain, certain feelings of man now and then are not so different, at least those core feelings of fairness and justice aren't that different. So if they feel those ways, have those feelings, how can they be blind to the undeniable logic, if not intellectual inferiority. Don't assume human intellect is the same back then, it's just not. They might believe different things, mostly because they're intellectual inferior. Study real science. Certain progress and achievement made doesn't excuse the idiocy of the whole. Yeah, we're a lot smarter now, which by defaults means they were dumber then. There's nothing wrong with it but they were not as smart. Just study some math, pal.
    1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663.  @thebat729  And I think you misunderstood Luthor's point. Fire is a very common thing, it enriches human life greatly, yet Prometheus is punished for giving it to mankind. Showing that the ones given the absolute power can behaved in an unfair way and harm everybody else. That doesn't seem fair. It relates to the paradox of the current government system that is restraining Lex Luthor, where he is vilified by the ones in charge because the ones in charge may not understand his motivation. You can spin it however you want, it all boils down to the same thing, it's false. Law of nature is broken all the time, that's what technology does, changing atomic structure, turning lead into gold, splitting electrons, defying the definition of God. So you know, those beliefs are false, they're totally illogical, there's no Zeus, there's no Jehovah, whatever story you tell yourself, they're lies and incoherent with reality. That's what Lex Luthor is talking about. You made up that interpretation of Gods representing nature's law by yourself. People back then who believed in the story just think of them as Gods, which of course it's totally false. You spin it that way but Luthor sees it for what it is. Their stories and how they believe those stories showcases their intellectual inferiority. Just like how Luthor sees the world, full of people not understanding him. I'm very sorry that the movie scene hurt your feelings regarding Greek Mythology or whatever, but like every other mythology in the world, they're all , simply put, proven to be false, beyond any doubt. So keep it real, homie. You see the stories by making up interpretation, cool. Luthor sees the story for what it is, a demonstration of illogical human behavior.
    1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673.  @svenboelling5251  It's not a "scientific definition", it's a logical definition. If the definition of the words "insane" means not acting in the "normal way", then the definition of "insane" relies on the definition of "normal". And normal means whatever the society think is normal. In your opinion, society is stupid, and "doesn't understand much", unfortunately you are in no position to define what is stupid and what is not stupid. Because stupid in the dictionary means "lack of common sense". The word "common" here also means whatever "society" decides as common. There are different kind of stupidity in Asia, and different kind of stupidity in Europe. Different societies. The adjectives of the world are full of logical holes. So I suggest you study the language first to avoid using meaningless words that have no real logical meaning in the real world. You can not redefine the meaning of a word, kid, that word is not your creation. If you use the word "insane", "normal", "stupid" according to your own definition, then you're using an unknown language to man that nobody uses except you. Which, by normal English definition, makes you "stupid", using a mix language, where you retain the grammar of English yet use the vocabulary of an alien language that sounds like English but means totally different things. And you use this alien language to communicate with human? Not a good plan. What society thinks is included within the definition of the word, so it does matters what society thinks, and it also means in the society point of view, you're "stupid" because you're using the wrong word. Are you arguing in English or an alien language, study English, pal.
    1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. To understand how most of your assumptions and questions are plainly wrong, you need to understand the reality and propaganda spoonfed to you by the slowly dying empire. 1. Their population is not shrinking, if it continues at this rate, it will shrink, but China is not like the US. Their government has extreme power to incentivize sudden change. It is in their tradition from ancient history to have many children. The recent one child thing is a mistaken policy that can be reversed, it's not easy but it will be reversed. The Chinese people do not think like you, so please do not assume your mentality on a population 3 times your size. 2. Their economy is not collapsing at any point, economy is not measured by GDP, or by dollars, or by anything that you're mistakenly measuring it by. It's measured by labour capacity, the ability to produce goods and services within your society. And at this level, the Chinese economy is one of the strongest ever, because of their independence in almost every significant industrial field, except for agriculture. 3. Their oil cannot be cut off, because they have a partnership with Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia. You fundamentally overestimate US military capability. If you blockade their country using military power, you're declaring war and you will be destroyed first. The China Russia alliance makes them invincible, far stronger than the US, and that partnership solves the China agriculture problems. The US will starve to death before the Russians, and that's not an opinion, that's a fact, calculable by the area of farmable land and agriculture technology. You sir, are a victim of really bad propaganda. You have to wake up and join the sane people. For over 4000 years of history, China has been the center of human civilization and power, what happened in the last 300 years or so is not going to change the trend.
    1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. Lord Rosemary First of all, the CNN guy didn't read the report, or he's playing dumb to brushing up Cortez's ass. Anybody who actually read and still claim to be "supporting" of it is plain lying, and it's incredibly pathetic that none of you morons could actually post something to prove your nonsensical point. Do it, give out a few examples, try to talk to the point, moron. I'll gladly dedicate my time educating a bunch of unemployed idiots. Bring it on, if you have the balls to put your dignity where your mouths are. Give out some points on how that stupid plan of medicare for all could be paid for. Except for that one study that did not say "medicare for all will save us 2 trillions". It pointed out due to the new "sufficiency" created through drug distribution by the government, 2 trillions will be saved. Unfortunately, the report didn't mention on what will differs from the current situation. If medicare for all is applied, in order to achieve that fantasy saving of 2 trillions, all American citizens must comply to that unrealistic program, destroying the free market, insurance companies, and probably the entire federal budget credibility, because to achieve that 32 trillion dollars mark over 10 years, the tax rate would have to be doubled immediately and then still have to be raised one more time, want to know why, read the report. And again, inequality when the top 1% will again, pay for more free stuff for idiots. Here's a simple logic, if the poor can't do anything to save their own asses, do you expect them to do anything when all of their living is paid for by somebody else? There, fact check, that, you have all the time you need. Give out some replies, idiot. If you can't, I suggest that you stop believing in this delusional "Latinas" or whatever the term she uses to attract unemployed people, and get a job.
    1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804.  @chesshooligan1282  Have you ever paused to consider that the people in Africa doesn't really care that much about chess? No chess youth training and therefore the number of people playing the game is less? Over the last 100 years, the number of Russian chess champions are ovewhelming, does that mean Slavic origin people are smarter than non Slavic origin people? You use a ridiculous set of standards. People in Africa has far bigger concern than playing chess. The same goes with Fields Medal Winner, for the last 100 years, a lot has been going on in Africa in that span, darling, that entire continent is not even a peaceful continent yet. The same goes with the Nobel Prize. All of those things existed within the last 100 years, the human race have existed for over 4000 years. A lot longer before that, Egypt is the cradle of civilization. The Alexandria Library, scholars from everywhere travel to Egypt. So back then does it make the Egyptian the smartest people on Earth? Kid, you need to learn to distinguish is what is really intelligence, what are meaningless titles. An award, chess player, Nobel prize, Fields medal, they're just awards in particular field, most notably awarded to people with discovery, not intelligence. Go study real science and you'll see how accidental discovery plays a massive role in those awards, not intelligence, hard work and discovery. The Nobel prizes have only existed for 120 years. During that 120 years, colonialism, world war and terrorism destroyed 2 major continents in Asia and Africa. The reason America has the most Nobel prizes is not because Americans are the most intelligent, it's because shortly after the Nobel Prize was invented, 2 massive world war happened and America was protected due to it's geographical location. The European intellectuals immigrated to America, bringing along their education and research works, thus make America has the most Nobel Prizes, but the origin of such intellects and knowledge comes from Europe, and even before that, the Europeans took their knowledge from the Egyptians and Indians.
    1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839.  @angelinimartini  I am a civilized person, pal. It's sad but this is how Democracy works. Everybody is responsible for his and her own actions, and some actions are not tolerable, even if they're constituted by reasonable situation. Life is not perfect, get over it. Majority of serial killers have very sympathetic childhood. But society can not tolerate what they do. No one is without sin, but some sin are not within the range of acceptable sin. If this is a perfect life, maybe, but it is not perfect. You don't want a person to have a slightly uncomfortable childhood, which is sick, because despite you claiming "uncomfortableness", Americans still live in an overly privileged world compared to countless other countries. So to avoid them this "slightly uncomfortable" childhood, you strip off their entire life, what has the potential to be full of wonders. That is a crime we civilized people can not tolerate. Not anymore. This kind of attitude, and this kind of barbaric action is a massive problem. Other countries, even less developed countries economically still have iron clad principle about ethics, that the killing of a kid is a abominable crime, yet Americans seem to celebrate it as if it is something more than just plain disgusting. That is a problem. People can get out of poverty easily, and even if they're poor, they're not starving. At least my tax money was put to some good use. Getting out of a moral depravity culture, that is much more concerning. During the time of the Civil War, despite there are problems within society, there was poverty, there was foreign conflict, there was other problems, but the people then decided that hey, the slavery thing is a problem because we can not tolerate such crime. Well this is that sort of crime. Abortion is the killing of a child, a free, innocent child with endless potential, you can ignore it because the size of an unborn baby carcass is usually not big enough to cause a spectacle. But is is much more heartbreaking than any image of any slave. Go search it up. They have a head, a heart, a torso, 4 limb, they have their own DNA, soon their own voice, and maybe they soon will have a "soul" So I suggest you get on board with the train of actual progress here.
    1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. @UC0Rl7bQFO7OLSTZUGgtOuUg And there, done, your logic crumbled right there. If you have the right to say anything like your previous argument in how the students can react to her Christian belief just because they want to, it hurts her the same way somebody feel sad about being "harassed" sexually. Now is that their fault for feeling bad or is the people's fault for speaking legally, in any sort logic, if sexually harassment is wrong, then the extreme action of people insulting her without reasons is also very wrong. Not to say that any criticism or sexually oriented comment is wrong, no that's not how it works, if a person can justify their comments with logic and sensible reasons then it is justified, that's how law and order is built. But like I said, before, it's wrong morally, not wrong legally, sexual harassment is a propaganda term, it's defined based on the subject aka the person being talked about, if the definition varies, any law relating to that is in some way very confusing and unclear, full of holes. You don't need to wait for consent before speaking, pal, any lawyer who defend in court will destroy that argument into pieces. Berkeley is ranked very high by who? An unknown organization with unknown justification, unknown reasons? The sub prime mortgage bond was also ranked very high, they caused a global economy crisis. Like I said before, judge things using your mind, otherwise you're gambling using your perception of the world. Berkeley student isn't smart, they're highly skilled, anybody above average can do that with the right amount of training, most students from Asia will destroy you in computer science, math, physics, anything academically related. The only exception is that you're located in America, full of resources. Here's the simple truth, science-wise, computer science, math, anything relating to calculations and equations, Berkeley might be the top, even though it is not clear what is the top because the result of alumnis are due to the alumnis themselves, not the school., Social science-wise, Berkeley is a hell hole, full of idiots who know nothing except their own opinion.
    1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898.  @Sylvertaco  again, pal, you're living in a bubble again, they're not students anymore, legally they drink, they waste money, they waste time. If a person over 18 drunk driving and kill somebody, he'll go to jail. So unless you want to push the age to maybe 25, then your vision is totally crazy. Groups pushing student loans are called governments, the loans aren't bad, the point is that the kid wasted the loans, you wasted money then it's the fault of the person who lend you money? Think a bit. Self made individuals are from real life, moron, wants a clue? Look at the rise of millionaires. Idiot. And the argument of stupidity, again, it's false, pal, even with the correct information, the stupid people can't make decisions, want a clue? They're called the left, when a person looses an argument with all the facts given to them beforehand, it's because they believe in a distorted version of the truth, which makes them stupid. For example you, I just pointed it out. People working in major tech companies, Pal, don't blame others just because you're pathetic, it's called ethics, study. Restrictions put on choices? So you're saying that mature people can't take loans anymore? Or you're saying that student loans need to have guaranteed asset, which is the old ways which the liberals promising free money for all removed and replaced with this current broken system? If you don't have a single argument, pal, it's better to stay quiet. You're just nitpicking pieces and ignore parts that you were destroyed.
    1
  1899. 1
  1900.  @Sylvertaco  Okay, you troll, like I said, don't pretend as such you're winning when you've been destroyed. The first obvious nitpick you make is when asserting that "people" are not stupid, I made the point of people being stupid to debunked your assumption of mob ruling will never go bad, given the example of how student loans are going down because people are making mistakes one their own. You claiming that because they're "students" despite them all being over 18 then it's not their fault but the fault of people who gives the loan. This argument of yours contradict the initial reply of saying that policies giving out taxpayers money are made due to the voting so it's never wrong. Who do you think give out the loans, kid? Government gives out student loans, it's not their money to give out, the policy is reckless, but it's made due to voting. So is the policy wrong or correct? You say that people giving out loans needs to take responsibility because students are stupid, while the same time saying that policies of giving out the loans will never go bad because people aren't stupid. Read, kid. Yeah, it's not actually nitpicking, it's just stupid argument. Banks don't give out student loans, kid, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3QSHVNDlaM Here, nice try. Too much reality for you? And another nitpicking you did was on the sentence: "Promoting self made individuals aren't idealistic, if you had went to school, they would've taught you that" Your assumption that this sentence means everything being taught in school is correct is nitpicking, it's also stupid interpretation, self made individuals are good examples happen to be taught in school, it doesn't mean everything taught in school are great. Clear, kid? We can keep doing this where I destroyed your arguments and you keep pretending that you've destroyed mine, despite it's obviously not because you don't even know that student loans aren't given out by the banks, so, If you want to troll, go to a MacDonald's ad.
    1
  1901. 1
  1902.  @williamr9833  It's very easy for everyone to create a bunch of things that are absolutely wrong, buddy. They actually need to create stuff that are correct, they're assisting with people who are creating correct stuff, but that's not the same thing. An advance machine is assisting people in manufacturing high technology products but that machine itself can't function without human input. Research hypothesis regarding social science is absolutely meaningless, especially if it's not even backed by a realistic methodology. You're confusing being able to do one tiny part of the whole venture, not even doing it well with being able to do the entire thing, those two are not same thing. Furthermore, that whole exponential argument you is based on nothing, you're guessing using wishful thinking, there's no clear formula or mathematical principle relating relationship between any specific characteristics of any algorithm with the computing hardware with the actual performance. Please go study real science, what's you're doing is making an observed guess on stuff you don't understand whatsoever, like a speculator in the stock market thinking how because a stock is going up, it will never go down. Please be more sophisticated, that's now how science works. Even the people who are researching the thing has no idea what it's going to do next or whether there will be a significant improvement or not, they just take the money given to them to do certain "experiments" and see what's going to hapeen, please distinguish between that, which is actual research, filled with uncertainties and specific details with your version of make belief. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
    1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038.  @darrencommanda7736  Shockingly, your belief are just your opinion based on your belief, it's not rooted in any widely accepted standards. My thoughts and a lot of other people thoughts on a whole is you are very ignorant with what you're talking about, intentionally ignoring information and taking on wild assumptions to pad up your delusional belief, which is detached from reality. Snyder made a realistic movie showing the dark nature of humanity and somehow you have a problem with it, you may disregard real life but that means there's rather a problem with you. And with the whole nonsensical video of that "nerd" dude, it's a meaningless video, even the montage he used in his video are out of context. He uses the "moment" cut out from a clip that literally has voice over in it to point out how Snyder are creating "meaningless moments", no those moments have meanings, you're intentionally ignoring a major part of it. And the whole idiocy regarding you have to slowly explain something to the audience on one set? Why does that even matter? People focuses on the characters, not the location those characters are in. Snyder built the story around characters and their emotions, sorry if you have a "location - fetish" but this isn't a sitcom. If those are the best critique of a movie, no wonder that guy's unemployed as a movie maker, those are useless critique that applies to himself and nobody else. The audiences aren't that dumb for you to jam the scenes into one location in order for them to follow, that's not a critique, it's an opinion. It's like saying you like the color red but the artist is using the color blue, a childish comment. Batman v Superman doesn't run for 2 and a half hour, it run for 3 hours, the guy who made that video can't even bother to see the correct version of the movie. Maybe you should start by seeing the correct version, pal.
    1
  2039.  @darrencommanda7736  Everything that video tried to say is factually wrong, because the guy who made the video can't even bother to see the correct version of the movie. You need to see the correct version, darling. In the fight scene, Superman tried to explain, when he's about to explain, Batman hit him with traps that was laid there before, that's why they need to fight it out, and one side can only explain after the other side is subdued. Imagine trying to talk to a person that's trying to kill you, it won't go down smoothly. This is why you need to watch the correct movie, pal, everything you said is factually wrong. His universe is not derailed at all, kid, again. That Snyderverse restoration is the most incredible achievement in Hollywood History, something will never happen with the fans of Reeves or Whedon, or like any generic directors who sold their souls to Disney, their work are as average and uninfluential as it can be. You claim Snyder has no substance, we claim every other movies churned out by the opposition, for example Joss Whedon has no substance, those movies have shallow substances, really poorly written material trying to be padded off as complicated thing, where it barely scratches the surface of any meaningful morality question, while Snyder work dwells right in there right in the first movie called Man of Steel. What would happen if a person is put onto an unwinnable situation? That happens rather too often in real life, that's the difficult question. When in Marvel movies or even the Batman, somehow even they tried to portraits the hero as losing, the hero has already won, it's ridiculous. The key difference is that we're committed enough to Snyder work and had made his vision came true, something that you idiots will never get, why? Because unfortunately for you, your level of attachment to those work are as shallow as the content of those work itself, very average. You don't understand those work, because there's nothing there to understand, you will be attached to 20 movies recycling the same idea under different name, shallow as it can be, you probably already have. So about the level of influence of each work, Snyder work might have a bit fewer fans, but quality of each fans outclass you average fans by a gigantic margin. First step in an argument, kid, do not get the wrong material. Maybe you should start by watching the correct version first, and start watching analysis video of the people who did watch the correct version.
    1
  2040.  @darrencommanda7736  That is adorable of you thinking that Reeves is a great director, just plain adorable. Cinema runtime has been cut down even for James Cameron, so stop with the nonsense of length time, studio just wisen up, has nothing to do with the director's credentials. Your version of good film is just too low for us sane people to accept. You haven't seen those things before showcases your lack of knowledge of film in general. There's nothing exceptional about Reeves batman movie, he took the motive of a detective film and then apply to whatever characters you can jam in there that does detective work, nothing original. Batman is not about doing "detective" thing, it's a minor component of batman, not the entire thing. This is a character that shapes about 70 years of America pop culture, show some respect. What you consider to be good or bad film is your subjective opinions, nobody really cares. But don't try to pass it off as anything more than a subjective opinion, it's not shared by anybody, and even if it is shared, it's a rather shallow judgement, you don't commit to the content that you're talking about. So it makes your comment sort of worthless, like showing a movie to a 4 year-old. The kid can very much have an opinion whether the kid like or hate it, and the opinion is just as valid, the difference is in the level of commitment, or the depth of the judgement. Don't take such pride on average qualities and generic perspective, pal. It's not something to be proud of, really.
    1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. First of all, this grifting channel is utterly disgusting. He's intentionally uses clickbait title to skew the reality of academia and the situation being discussed in the process. A person of such caliber and that position is nearly never the main author of any of these papers, they're not responsible for collecting, handling, analyzing the data or writing the paper, they're an overall supervisor, manager and therefore their name is last. If a technician at a company commits fraud and bad work ethics in delivering a product, the overwhelming majority of the fault lies with the technician, not the CEO of that company. And furthermore, this guy have absolutely no understanding of the verification process of fraud. You can't just put out a serious claim of allegation and then pretend as the word of an unknown person, probably unqualified on a not qualified website as proof. What do you mean exact replication? Did you count the pixels that are stored inside the images via somekind of software, where's that analysis of the stored photo? Your eye finding is not good enough. People at that scale of a Nobel Laureate doesn't have time to deal with nonsensical untrustworthy crude allegation, if you want to prove that something is wrong, do a proper analysis by software, homie. And even more than that, Sudhof published nearly 400 papers in his entire career, you found 35 allegations, allegations, btw, and one case of proven fraud that's not even comitted by him. This is not a scandal, this is low life YouTube grifting technique.
    1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. Hey, idiot, if that's your case than every baby in Africa should be killed right? You're showing no understanding at all of moral reasons, laws, or actual knowledge of the field. Information Technology? One very important tip relating to actual intelligent arguing, do not bring up nonsense that isn't related to the point, for example, you're showing your very average degree to back up your talking point, which isn't much to begin with. If you're too confused about how things work if I explain in a normal way, here's a more direct way. Laws are not perfect, the Constitution isn't perfect, the Constitution isn't a set of absolute rules, it's a relative set of laws that our founding father tried to make it as close as possible to embodying our values and codes. So unless you can take a direct sentence denying something in the Constitution like the first amendment, for example: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to freedom of speech", all the rest that isn't in the constitution is for the people at different times to decide, and the limit to that decision is based on what kind of arguments you can give to support your understanding, and currently, now pal. You can't. A little tip, you actually worked in I.T, you would have known that Wikipedia is the worst example someone could get when quoting facts or information. Journalist do not use Wikipedia as source. Politicians can't use Wikipedia as grounds for election campaign, lawyers can't use Wikipedia for proof. So there, that's the example, kid, maybe you're 50, but the amount of knowledge that you posses in this field is not that much more than what a 5th grader posses, considering how you're just typing nonsense things that you could find on the internet, I've concluded that it's a decent assumption. There are social well fare programs, how can you say that we're not supporting life when all things we're doing is helping the society, bringing back jobs so that parents could feed their kids, the current situation is bad for our people, no doubt. But that situation is due to economic passiveness and horrible programs that do not have any actual use. Obamacare, is that your proof for Democrats caring for life? Go back to college and get another degree. Finally about the Supreme Court Delay, when a Justice is confirmed, he or she shall be on the bench for life until their retirement, which could last until they're death if they don't want to resign or retire before their deaths. So here's the actual argument, having one President nominating too many nominees into too many open seats is extremely dangerous because it will make our system possibly rigged. Because Presidents choose nominees based their preferences. And that's fine, to a degree. A minimal balance position needs to be retained on the Supreme Court, so a Presidents are usually able to choose 1-2 nominees in their terms. Unless it's an exceptional case. For example, if a Supreme Court Justice passed away at the middle of a President's Term, than the vacancy of the seat will be too long, therefore require special judgement, and they could appoint another nominee, but that nominee has to be considered neutral in order for the system to work. And Obama didn't respect that, therefore he tried to push for a far left judge at the end of his term, that is unacceptable. Okay, pal. Anybody who has studied law, if qualified, needs to realize that laws are not perfect, so the way we applied those laws needs to be based on context and how the law would affect the concerned. Try to think a bit. Judges shall not fined an extremely large amount of money to a company that accounts for an also extremely large number of employees. That's how you applied the law, If the reading itself is too confusing to you because you probably had no training involved reading, then I suggest watching a sitcom that has a lawyer.
    1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272.  @dacali1636  That's not how that law works, little children. Inciting what? Did he directly encourage the mob to break in the capitol? Did he directly encourage them to kill anybody? Did he directly encourage or plan the systemic overthrowing of the government? You see, inciting is a word, used as incite a specific action, not as inciting in general, or indirectly. Study real law. Like I said, unlike you deranged people, the country doesn't work on triggered feelings. Majority of the Senators do not have the authority to impeach a President, only a 2/3 super majority can, it sucks, heh. Constitutional law is just a bummer. And even then, they do not have the authority to convict and sentence him to anything. They can only remove him off his position, which he no longer hold and can not be done. You see, there are 3 parts of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. If he committed a federal crime, that must be prosecuted by the Executive of the Biden administration, what happened, all the power and nothing happened? The law prevent you from political persecution? Sad, huh? Spend more than just 20 minutes flipping over random triggered tweets shall do you much good. You're not even in the US, and of course, the fact that you spent 20 minutes of research on one of the most impactful event of America history showcase how ignorant you are. Because majority of what you managed to research is wrong, it's naive, it's laughable. Educate yourself on facts, kid, not make believe facts. Study properly, that style of work can get you an A in gender study, not in life.
    1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. ​ @Graybeard_  Yeah, that's not how it works, darling. If you want a new right, you have to vote and then pass a new amendment. Your sick way of cheating the law is not acceptable anymore. It's over, deal with it. Reagan changed, sad enough, he came to the right side too late and already caused a lot of damage to California, but he made up for that later. A much simpler explanation is that your fantasy of protection for abortion, is not in the Constitution. I don't really care what you want, but you can't just make something up and then force it upon society as if it's a law. It's not in the Constitution, there's no right that includes it, and people wrote the constitution didn't even know about such a thing, they kept banning abortion for the next 150 years. How about you get back to reality? Your argument about the 2nd amendment is completely false, because that ignores the second part of that one sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it has never been interpreted that one has to be in a militia to keep a weapon, that's just stupid. Free states, not free United States, that amendment limits the federal government from infringing the right of the individual states citizens to keep weapons. Your sad argument was dismantled is Columbia v Heller. And no, people can't buy AK-47 anymore, those are illegal. Weapons with massive destruction capabilities are not protected by the 2nd amendment. AR-15 shoots one bullet at a time, it's a hand gun, just bigger. Go study real law, kid. Your make belief law standard might work in California, where the lunatics reside, but it's unacceptable to the sane people of this country.
    1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325.  @johnj8639  Oh really, what are those reasons about student debts? idiots taking out loans that they can't pay, huh? Wonder what you call that if not idiots? Are they genius? Are you also going to ignore that overwhelming majority of those loans are not invested in anything capable of making a profit? Taking a loan to be a teacher is a stupid act, because being a teacher doesn't pay back the loans. Education that teaches you useless stuff, are useless. There are a few classes on mud pie making down at the pig farm, people spending 4 years in those classes are what? Genius? You lie again with the equity argument, Google had much less equity than Yahoo, so was Facebook, you continued to ignore facts and live in a fantasy. So I suggest you wake up, pal. This is not 1932, it's 2020. Minimum wages are the things that made inequality this bad. How can you claim to be reducing inequality if you're denying jobs to the people whom capabilities don't match the minimum wages? Everything you have listed are big fantasies, that are not viable in the US, because as I have pointed out, a bunch of idiots live there. 47% don't pay a dime in taxes. Payroll taxes aren't taxes, they'll get it back much more in Medicare. Countries with the smallest inequality, unfortunately, are also parasitic countries. You think Sweden got here by themselves? If you look at their companies, the biggest ones are monopolies. And the funny thing, they enslave those monopolies to give out free stuff to the lower people. But the bad thing here, is that year after year, they create nothing, year after year, living off what is already there and brings in zero innovation. Because as I've pointed out, even with so much free equity, they still contributed nothing. The nonsense of innovation not coming off of inequality, it has been debunked. Equality in opportunities means inequality in outcomes, because certain individuals are that special. This is not a theory, it is a fact. And the biggest leverage to success is to able to earn what you made. How come the inequality level so low but the innovation is next to zero despite the biggest companies there are not lacking in equity at all? Your theory conflicts with reality, there is a word for that. Wrong.
    1
  2326.  @johnj8639  Really, most students will pay back their student loans? How can it be a crisis if most people will payback their loans? And if most you mean only 51%, that other 49% is a small amount. Learn some actual math. 49% is still a lot, not a majority, but a lot. Investment? Taking a degree in gender study is an investment surely, investment to failure. Pal, I don't know what bubble you're living in, but if the loans being taken out are actual solid investments, then there would be no crisis. But unfortunately, most of them are useless. If you look at Harvard or Stanford major list, even at those schools, out of 60 possible majors, only 10 are viable. A college degree in Film studies is pretty much useless because the chance of a normal individuals becoming a solid director to make real money is very small. So again with the lies. You have done the math? Which major are you in? If it's Engineering or any actual sciences, fine, you're not one of the dummies. But if you think that there isn't a massive number of loans taken out to pursue moronic studies, then you probably are a dummy. Get back to reality and get out of the bubble. Your monopoly argument is flawed because you can't seem to name a monopoly today. What is the monopoly today if not the biggest company? Or do you want make belief examples so that your absurd theory would sound good by default? You are the dummy who don't know how economic works, here's simple clue. If everything was sunny side up, they wouldn't have called it a crisis. You have been destroyed on every part and shockingly, you can not give a counter argument except on my grammar. That is called ignorance, pal. You have been citing the nonsensical economic theories of the 1920s, complete ignoring the later half of the 20th century where those theories are destroyed. I suggest reading Friedman and Sowell. Get out of the bubble, pal. And I have explained to you how those countries are parasites. Their biggest company are mostly monopolies living off the population, industries that are as old as it can be, banking and oil refining. There are no competition, no innovation, they live off military protection of the US, they barely allow any immigration. And the companies they own all uses American technology and American innovation that we allowed them to use. The example is Neste, the biggest company of Finland by far, a parasitic oil refining company that lives off American oil refining technology, and Russian oil sources. So, living without having to do much, it's quite parasitic. If America revoked all of it's technological transfer, those countries would become Russian district within a year, because only the Russian has alternate technology for them to live on. Wake up, kid.
    1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. Yeah, that's not how it works, pal. He specifically said in the interview that FTX US is maybe solvent, and he's no longer in charge of it. FTX International is different. His explaination is that Alameda Research was doing trading on FTX platform, trading derivatives and options, and such they need to put up collateral that they did not have. And if Alameda can't put up collateral, supposedly FTX has to stop Alameda trading activities and "liquidate" the assets, which means they keep all the collateral put up by Alameda. However, he said this did not happen due to lack of attention, that Alameda was able to kept trading on the platform despite not putting up enough collateral. It's a bit different, but in this case, it's actually legal. There are 2 scenario. Scenario 1: FTX wired money to Alameda directly and let Alameda uses such money to trade elsewhere, that is illegal, and by Sam's claim, it did not happen Scenario 2: Every "derivative trading", "leverage" on FTX platform uses other customer's funds in order to trade, and in order to do so, the ones who trade has to put up collateral. For example, if you want to trade ETH on FTX but you don't have ETH, FTX can loan you ETH of other customers if you put up collateral into FTX platform. This is legal and is in the terms of service. What happened supposedly is that Alameda traded on FTX platform using legal loans that they collateralized with FTT tokens, which is perfectly legal token to put up as collateral by market cap. But when the FTT tokens fail, Alameda trading options got closed out, but FTX can no longer sell the collateral FTT tokens anymore. This is a perfectly legal scenario In scenario 2, where does the money go? The money goes to the sides that were betting against Alameda. Not everybody loses money, money here is a fixed amount, other parties that bet against Alameda won big, you just didn't hear of them yet. Like in 2008 Real estate bubble, where did the money go? The money went to the people who built those houses and sold them off easily for quick money.
    1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384.  @Cynna1065  Okay, kid, you're just embarrassing yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about concerning law school, Columbia Law here, want to meet? You're just ignoring information and demand proof before anything can be proven, that kind of thinking would lead you to believe that the moon landing is fake, and something mysterious happened in Roswell, here's a piece of advice, if something can't be prove or disprove, we, by law are required to act based on the presumption of innocence, but it doesn't mean that information can be ignored just because they're not directly linked, idiot. That's how thesis, theory is formed. You want to ignore that, fine. Keep living in that bubble if you want to. I did show what I had found, kid. It's a case, which has really obvious evidence, number of illegal immigrants, by definition is criminal, millions of them, will be prosecuted and arrested if the policies against illegal immigrants are passed. So if you don't consider that as valid motive, then maybe you should ignore witness protection, because there is no proof whatsoever that the criminals will "harm" the witness, right? Where did you go to school, Ixtapa? There are 2 kinds of prove, idiot. Direct proof, and indirect proof, the direct proof is used to convict someone, but the indirect ones are used, when the direct ones aren't available, they're used to make a case against something, such as criminal records, motive. That's how people got investigated before being arrested. You're seeing the situation as whether something is absolutely proved or it is false, which is ignorant. Clear? Disproving or proving something in an absolute way requires hard evidence. Which are usually not available because most criminals aren't that stupid, they're smarter than you. But we're also more clever, we have the right to suspect somebody of something, as in how the police department have the right to suspect anybody and listed anybody related into the investigation if they don't have solid alibi, and even when they have alibi, the police still have the right to suspect that something happened, because out of all possible situation, there are more situation that something happened indirectly than nothing happened at all. So given the information above, it's reasonable to assume that something is happening and demand an investigation into the matter, but we can't. Those illegal immigrants are being protected by the same senators, representative that they support and committed crimes to vote for, information, kid, learn it. Where would people learn that? Law school, kid, they even taught that in college, maybe you should go there. There isn't proof, because if there was proof, the majority of Democrats would be impeached, like I said, it's not absolute, we're in the process of investigating. You're really delusional, aren't you. Copying words without even thinking what they meant. The proving and disproving something is only required in the court of law, why? Because it's in that court of law that the government will use their tremendous power to exercise those judgement, and that requires a relatively correct judgement. But when discussing about a case that isn't in a court of law, for example, like this one. You need to give information to make a case. Otherwise we can't catch any murderer if they're not caught at the scene, why? Because you can't suspect anyone because there are no hard proof. So, learn to read, and then learn to think about what you read. Because you're just embarrassing yourself An old Chinese saying for you: If you know, say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how you know. You don't know anything, kid. Go back to school, pathetic!
    1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423.  @jrich745  Yeah, I have a better one for you. The official release statement of the DEA, read it. It's long but not that long, mostly graphics.They actually discussed the matter in that article with full context. Let me break your illusion, First: Illegal border crossing isn't down, the article only mentioned illegal crossing that were apprehended, and furthermore, what do you think's gonna happen when they already gotten into the country? Did the people who got in just go out and re enter every year? Do the math, they stay, so of course it's gonna go down, but it keeps adding up Second: People who come into the country don't aim at border counties, idiot. You don't go to the border to deal drugs, or find jobs. You go for the center, or close the center, and again, "counties". Not state, counties. Think a bit Third, most undocumented immigrants don't sneak through the border, well they're the civilized one who could get a visa. The dangerous ones, (caravan) didn't, and furthermore is that this statement has no source. Fourth, fine, not terrorist, people with serious criminal history, intention of violence, criminals. They're slightly better, but if you think that you should let a criminal into your own home just because terrorist have been stopped from entering then you're crazy. Fifth, no caravan are sneaking, they're rushing the border, want to look? There are footage, asylum seekers don't attack border patrol agents and scale the barrier. Those actions, if happened domestically are called thieves. Study. Sixth, drugs entering, only known drugs, apprehended drugs are hidden. Why do you think they know that they're hidden? Think a bit, if the drugs coming in are caught at checkpoint, why would they go through the checkpoint, idiot. Seventh, Conservative political figures? Who? One representative? All politicians in the past agreed on the barrier? Need some footage? Eighth, 354 miles already have fence? So what, the border is way much more than that, do you keep your wall holed because 30% is already filled? Ninth, polls conducted by whom? Credibility? There was an actual election and Donald Trump was voted as the President, that's more accurate than any poll. And if you're gonna pull the "public vote", there's a reason we don't use that. Montana does contribute to the country, not just California. The entire article is a bunch of nonsense. I just did you a favor of pointing it out.' Read carefully and choose a better agenda next time.
    1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. Buddy, you don't know much about history, economics, science or technology, don't you? For the last several hundred years, your systems failed miserably in improving the lives of common people. It established a gigantic class differences which was slightly better than the slave and aristocratic time but no where near a "working system". The rise of what's called "the middle class", and a system severely over romanticized, is what you would refer the US age after WW2, where the cowardice USA hide behind 2 gigantic oceans and suffered minimum losses but very quickly reap all the benefits. And with the gained benefits as the position as "world leader", a proclaimed position accepted by no one but by default goes to the remaining country that left standing after WW2, by hiding, the US fueled it's economy with growth and development gained from having little competition due to the headstart gained from the war. And US lackey, the Western European bunch gained some benefits because of it. However, this literally means using this coincidental benefits to sabotage everyone else who doesn't fall in line. It's also very beneficial that the major power in Russia and China got lost with their whole radical socialism movement that they lag behind greatly. That time is over, hombre. As the world catches up, especially Russia and Asia, the US advantage increasingly becomes smaller, Russia has more resources and China has a better pool of population, both in quality and quantity. And cracks start to show, it doesn't help certain political disaster caused your entire country to be filled with massive corruption and chaos. Those aren't done by the left or the right, it's caused by your system, unlimited freedom with no discipline as well as direction. Left or Right politicians, they're equally corrupt and they implemented literally the exact same ridiculous policy that benefited themselves and not you. This is your tradition, pal. Don't delude yourself. You were never great, you were just lucky. The rest of the world with a much deeper history than you, more sophisticated philosophy than you, they were great. They didn't rely on coicidences over a short period of time to achieve greatness, their greatness is long lasting by certain core characteristics of the culture. The last 70 years were temporary, better catch up with reality.
    1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. ​ @БогданБеркут  I won't insult you but your ignorance is off the chart. You seemingly can't distinguish between a people and a name of a kingdom. Name of Kingdom changes, but the people remains there an ethnicity. Slovakia is a kingdom for the Slovaks, now they existed as a tribal and part of Empires throughout history but there's no denying that they are a people. I'll granted, I used the wrong words, it's not the Russian Empire ruled them for 200 years so they automatically became Russians. It's the that Russian Empire ruled them 200 years and an overwhelming majority of the population there have came to recognized themselves as Russian therefore they're Russians. That's what distinguish this case from the case of Ireland, the Irish people never come to recognized themselves as British, the same goes to the ones under British rule in India. But that's not "Ukraine". There was no separate group of people there. Even if you go the back to the trace of the 8th century of the Kievan Rus time, which of course is the ancestors of Russians today, it literally shows the entire Eastern part of today "Ukraine" as part of Kievan Rus, therefore, occupied by Russian people. It doesn't matter if some dude created a word in a University pal, I'm sure that there's someone using the word Texans in the official documents right now but it doesn't create a Texan people, they're part of the US. Now if there was some people that occupy on those territories that wanted to separate, they failed, and therefore the entirety of the population there throughout history lived as a part of Russian, not because there was a prior state of these "Ukrainians" and then they were invaded by Russians, unlike the case of Ireland where there was an Irish people and British were foreigners. No, they have always been one people starting out in Kiev, and then got conquered by the Mongols and then some King reunified them and expand their influence to Moscow today. When the central of power shift to Moscow, the ruling class moved to Moscow, but the people of the "Russian Empire" or "Tsardom of Russia" or "Kievan Rus" has always been Russian, even if they're called by different name. The ruling family of "Kievan Rus" literally ruled the Tsardom of Russia as well. What you mentioned in that Census was a lie that either you intentionally lie or you're very ignorant of. They recorded these "Ukrainians" as "Little Russians", not because they deemed that those people are separate foreign people, but as a branch of the gigantic Russian Family. To explain this simply, Texans still means American. So again, everything you typed about history of that region is false.
    1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481.  @richardgill7121    Okay, are you stupid, moron. There hasn't been any pure socialist society, either. PATHETIC IDIOT, LEARN TO READ. Capitalism created tremendous wealth, allowing people to move forward, hence, the creation of what we now called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, from then on, the creation of liberty, from then on, modern society. Which part of that is confusing to you? It's not the reading, right? Because a 10 year-old can understand that simple fact. Want to speak with my little sister? First of all, about healthcare, if you're trying to say that the we are the worst in healthcare, why is all the top hospitals here? Why are all the medical breakthrough are from here? Why do people go to America to have surgeries instead of Canada. You're a sad, little person, who can't distinguish between healthcare quality for the top and the average ones. Your think the top 10% goes to the public sector where they paid 70% of it? No, our system is bad on avergae, because 50% percent of the population don't pay taxes, they're using the facilities for free, of course it's bad. Infant mortality, same reason. So is life expectancy, IDIOT. Our healthcare system isn't for the American people, it's for the American people who pays their way in with their works and merits. It's called meritocracy, learn it, you moron. Ask anybody, whether you would like to treat cancer in America, all expense paid for, or would you like to treat it in Canada. Distinguish the two because you're just being pathetic. A simple analogy, the average level isn't a measure of the approximate level of every part. It could be some part really, really high plus some really, really low parts. You want to complain why you're not getting dreamy healthcare, how about getting a job. The top 10% is paying for 70% of everything in the country, if you belong to the bottom 90%, you may as well get only 3.3% of what the top 10% is having. Do you think bankers and brokers are having world ranked 47th healthcare. Pathetic! Learn some math.
    1
  2482. 1
  2483.  @richardgill7121    Boy, wtf we're you thinking posting nonsense. 50% of American population doesn't pay taxes, there more "revenue" ? Want to know where, read some research, statistics, there are public reports of this. Need a link? If you don't do any research, don't type anything. You live in Australia, there, end of discussion, you're living here, and you don't have any knowledge about here, get some before you type. The reason your country survives, maybe its population is low enough, want to compare to Vietnam, kid? 80 million people, more "tax revenue" there? The difference in healthcare? Your entire argument is detached from reality. 4.2 trillion dollars come from the report which she based this plan on. Read it, like I said, do some research, kid. The top 1% is paying for 40% of the country and it's not fair share? How fair would you want to be? Do they get 66 times the service, or 66 times the gratitude? Definitely not. And if you wonder where I get the figure 66, here's a clue, it called math. Learn some math. Social programs working where? UK? How much is their population? So is Canada? Why isn't people in countries like Vietnam, 80 million people, get the same result as Scandinavian countries, they're applying the same social program. Your mind is too small to think big, learn how to think bigger, kid. For your question, I would be fine, kid. Me and the people like me are paying 70% of the country, so I think I'll do just fine. Less tax, more savings, it's called thinking. You should learn how to if you want to live a meaningful life.
    1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496.  @davidthomas9165  Because giving a green card to a spouse is much easier than a sibling. Math, you see. That answers your question of "why". She should take the DNA test, not at the demand of anything, but to embarrass her political opponent. I'm sure you have all sort of fantasy lined up on why she would missed out on such an opportunity. Here's a simpler explanation than all of those fantasy. She lied to you, kid. She's completely legal to not provide evidence, however, are you really that low to say people doing minimal legal stuff is admirable? Like a murderer asserting his 5th amendment privilege while pleading not guilty is totally fine? Again, how dumb are you? Let's skip the whole legal and illegal things Omar are required to do. You're dumb enough to believe that despite having all of the advantage, Omar choose not to use any of them? Just like Elizabeth Warren when she did that DNA test, easy way to "silence" critics. Now you might live in a world where people tip toeing on the law, not to confirm their innocent, but to avoid being convicted is totally fine. But again, that's like a really sad world, a world for idiots, have a higher standard, mate. A simple solution to the theory that the "lab result" is fake, is to make it a public lab and do 2 different test. One lab choice given to the Republicans. That's an easy way to provide transparency. Now it might not silence the far right, but will win over countless "centrist". That is not enough? Again, brilliant political move. Unless Omar's an idiot, so the question, How dumb are you, pal? The undeniable conclusion, either Omar's a criminal or she's an idiot. I don't know which one is better for you dummies.
    1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594.  @jebvilla  That's not what happened, genius. It's only a ponzi scheme if somebody steal your money. Nobody stole their money, they invested using a token whose values can be decreased at any times. No, that's not the only way UST as a token can make moneys. The key principle is this, UST is the most functional transaction token in the world, if that token becomes crucial a certain business of somekind, the value will increase greatly. But how do UST becomes crucial to a certain business? More people must be using it. How do you do that? More people has to use it. How do you do that? You lure them in with interesting interest rates. Interest rates that Do Kwon has, pal. The interest is in UST, not in dollars, a certain number of UST that Do Kwon had. That's not a ponzi scheme, that's an investement, Do Kwon was paying people with his own UST to get them to deposit UST, in turns making UST more valuable. Like Uber, discounting prices to lure in more users. What happened was lost of confidence in UST, Do Kwon did not steal anything or committed fraud on anybody, UST lost it's values, the interest of 20% is still there, it's just in UST, but UST is now worthless therefore the interest is worthless, that's not Ponzi, that's like stock market, if the stock falls, you end up with nothing. There's no fraud, there's no ponzi. Go learn some Economics. Luna and UST did exactly what they were supposed to do, the token death spiral is not even a secret, it can always happen, that's public knowledge of algorithmic stable coin that the investors ignored. The "investors" got greedy.
    1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620.  @joseph7988  First of all, it was never widespread to that scale of you colonialist. Most countries never enslave a completely different nation compared to theirs overseas. Most countries stay within their land borders and associated regions. You homies enslaved people that has nothing to do with you, that is nasty. There's no cultural aspect here to the birth of Galileo, homie, the culture at that time was him being burned alive, it was only after he showed you the truth that he changed the culture itself, that's what actually happened, not some fantasy you thought of inside your head. It was that accident that propelled you towards the new age, before that, the Europeans were poor, unsophisticated, this is fact, before that guy, there was nothing there. The Roman Empire looks pale in comparison with the sophistication of the Chinese Empire, where they were able to unite a far more diverse region, using the same language, same measurement systems, same set of basic laws, they have much better cuisine as well. And furthermore, the technological development has nothing to do whether something is feudal or not, the technological advancement of Europe achieved it's burst during the reign of aboslute monarchs. Buddy, you have shown a complete ignorance of mathematics, science, technology, society, both Western and Eastern. I suggest you go get a better education. There's nothing special about European culture, it's the same as every other culture, shaped by the outer environment of nature and certain accidental breakthroughs that are independent of the culture in general. All of it converges to a common set of values, where the human soul seeks freedom and happiness, certain accidents can propel that journey but it's going to happen sooner or later, the obvious proof is that countless discoveries were simultenously discovered throughout multiple cultures and the usage of such technologies are always implemented, the human mind seeks happiness and utilizing technology to do so is universal. This is admitted facts, without the number 0, there's no modern mathematics, without trignometry, there's no modern science, without the compass, there's no navigation, it's all converging towards the truth, no discovery is more special than another discovery, they have different usage but they're all equally the truth, whether it's discovered sooner or later is completely irrelevant. Buddy, you can deal with that reality or not, but it doesn't change the truth. This is me doing you a favor because if you want to compare just culture depth alone, both by length and by depth the Europeans will be ruthlessly crushed by the Asians, even right now, the Chinese are crushing you at nearly everything. Show some respect.
    1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634.  @riccphoto  What? Intellectually capable people are too scary for you? Everybody capable of thinking will reach their own conclusion. I'm perfectly open to discussing this but you wouldn't dare. Russia has a lot of business in Ukraine, a lot of people in those regions are ethnically Russians, who are receivingg too much mistreatment from the terrorist regime. You don't think they are but Russia does. The Ukrainian Coastline is a strategic military advantage that must not be in unsafe hands, Russia doesn't trust Ukraine so they took it. Acting in their national interest, why is that none of their business? China and India is not distancing at all, China and India stayed exactly the same as they were in February, which is why your sanction is nearly harmless, people still get their smartphones from China. Sad, isn't it, to know how truly alone you are. China is next, after Russia win this, China will take Taiwan, India will probably be neutral for a while because Pakistan is a bit too powerful. You don't get it, do you? Those countries, China, India, Russia are not friends, but they all have one thing in common, they hate you Americans. Imperialists with their constant propaganda of freedom while doing exactly the opposite all over the world. And they demonstrated their hatred quite well when they abandoned you earlier this year in the UN, and are still doing until this day, they just abandoned you yesterday one more time. So those are the observable facts, what are your reasons? Make belief?
    1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. First of all, the CNN guy didn't read the report, or he's playing dumb to brushing up Cortez's ass. Anybody who actually read and still claim to be "supporting" of it is plain lying, and it's incredibly pathetic that none of you morons could actually post something to prove your nonsensical point. Do it, give out a few examples, try to talk to the point, moron. I'll gladly dedicate my time educating a bunch of unemployed idiots. Bring it on, if you have the balls to put your dignity where your mouths are. Give out some points on how that stupid plan of medicare for all could be paid for. Except for that one study that did not say "medicare for all will save us 2 trillions". It pointed out due to the new "sufficiency" created through drug distribution by the government, 2 trillions will be saved. Unfortunately, the report didn't mention on what will differs from the current situation. If medicare for all is applied, in order to achieve that fantasy saving of 2 trillions, all American citizens must comply to that unrealistic program, destroying the free market, insurance companies, and probably the entire federal budget credibility, because to achieve that 32 trillion dollars mark over 10 years, the tax rate would have to be doubled immediately and then still have to be raised one more time, want to know why, read the report. And again, inequality when the top 1% will again, pay for more free stuff for idiots. Here's a simple logic, if the poor can't do anything to save their own asses, do you expect them to do anything when all of their living is paid for by somebody else? There, fact check, that, you have all the time you need. Give out some replies, idiot. If you can't, I suggest that you stop believing in this delusional "Latinas" or whatever the term she uses to attract unemployed people, and get a job.
    1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798.  @TheSolarScience  You know, when i started to consider that you are a serious person with real facts, I start to read the document which you gave, and it's total nonsense. Don't be a troll, pal. I don't know where you get these kind of soundbite but it's not going to work among real people with real intelligence. The 2 documents link you provided, either you didn't read them at all, or you're just too stupid to understand what it means. First, "GAO, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance, GAO-11-696. Table 8 (page 131), 2011". Read page 130, pal, they specifically pointed out that the amount of money is accumulated due to the renewal of each loans, pal. PCDF loans which are renewed daily, let banks borrow money for one night, in exchanged of a collateral asset, and pay back the money the next day. However, during the financial crisis, the loans are made in the form of multiple loans in a row for the same asset. The first day you borrow money for an asset, the next day you return the money and borrow the money again, letting the same asset in as a collateral. These loans are accumulated as daily loans. But they are for the same asset, therefore it's just one amount of money. So your 16 trillions claim is actually 160 billions, because the loans are made in the span of 100 days. Don't just repeat the soundbite, read the actual report. Second "Levy Institute estimated the bailout cost to be $29 trillion (Levy Institute, Working Paper No. 698, December 2011", this report fails in page 5. If you had read it, it shows clearly the "trillion" word here, comes mostly from credit extension, which by the name, is not actually money being drawn out, it's called money capable of being drawn out. Being calculated so that if a bank has assets, they can withdraw how much money as loans. In the case of AIG, in 2009, they're valued low because of low liquidity, but in fact, they held multiple assets which can not be sold, but they are still assets that can produce wealth in long term. For example, a building is worth zero if nobody's willing to buy it, but it's still a building, the value of it is estimates in billions, because it's not the current price, but estimation of future price. The credit extension by the Feds, even though are trillions, are very much in line with what assets AIG have at the time, they also hold asset of nearly trillion. So yeah, with after finding fatal flaw in those 2 document alone, I decided that you're a troll, and it's probably too complicated for you to understand what I've just explained. So here, GO BACK TO SCHOOL, TROLL, DON'T REPEAT THE SOUNDBITE, IT'S NOT TRUE.
    1
  2799. 1
  2800.  @TheSolarScience  So your 2 only verifiable document was shred to pieces so now you go on to base your ridiculous argument based on hearsay? 1. And pal, I have destroyed your lies about the " GAO, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance, GAO-11-696. Table 8 (page 131)", so yeah, re typing that is just pure trolling. Read page 130, they specified in their own reports why the 16 trillions number is stupid, for the likes of you. https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf, page 130, pal. 2. "Levy Institute, Working Paper No. 698, December 2011, $29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bailout by Funding Facility and Recipient". Again, this piece of evidence was also debunked, page 5, read closely, pal. Extension credit, not loans, not money. Learn some math. 3. The testimony of the people given above is not about the money being given out in the bailout, you troll, it's about the potential losses of every default swap on the market. Which it will be 62 trillions, if every single swaps being defaulted. And it has nothing to do with the bail out money because the bail out is only 180 billions. The potential losses of 62 trillions, is not referring to AIG alone, it's referred to the entire market of swaps, and if you actually heard the testimony. https://www.c-span.org/video/?281644-1/aig-bailout-oversight-hearing-panel-1&start=5435 1:31:27. The total amount of debt is substantially less because every swap are made against one another, so if a company wins, another company loss, and that loosing company might win on some of the swaps as well, the worst case scenario is 17 trillions. And that number has no yet to occur, because if that's so, then there would be some really wealthy people walking the planet cashing in from credit default swaps. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/if-the-amount-of-62-trillion-d Poor troll, you see, when you try to lie but provide real evidence, it's very easy to tore your lies apart. Because they're lies. 4. Your claim of withholding of disclosure, has nothing to do with the the figure 62 trillions, the report only says about the threat and the liabilities of the federal reserve acting as an independent agency providing loans. And yes, they might have loss billions, but it's no where near your conspiracy theory of "trillions". YOU ARE A BIG FAT LIAR. Your proclaim "facts" are actually not facts but lies, you're either intentionally lying about the reports you quote, or you're too stupid to understand what the report accurately say. Nice try, you troll. You don't proclaim to know anything, probably because you barely know anything. Learn to read reports properly. Last time, I destroyed only 2 of your fake evidence to spare you your dignity. But this time I destroyed all of your fake evidence. Have some shame, kid.
    1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814.  @ldjcool1  You could live the bubble but that's not gonna last. It's not legal at all to bribe officials overseas to act on your bidding, even TV shows acknowledge this. Don't be a moron. The prosecutor was investigating Biden's son, it means that Biden has a clear conflict of interest, it could be corruption, it could be tax evasion, maybe illegal trading. Doesn't matter what he did or didn't do, because removal of the investigation into a company means benefits to individuals . It's called corruption. By your very unlikely theory, Biden did nothing except what the government agenda was. Unfortunately, by having his son in a Ukraine company under investigation, not to mention how his son is incredibly inexperienced, this even fake news media confirmed. Biden himself had a conflict of interest in dealing. That's a certainty, the lightest crime is conflict of interest. And to ask them to launch investigation is not unreasonable at all. Rudy Giuliani claim that he has proof, solid proof, even though he can't disclose it because logic, you don't unveil proof to the opponents unless in front of court. But the same kind of logic here applies, the same as Russia Collusion, with Russian Collusion, you have zero proof, zero public source and almost zero result, because it's fake from the beginning. With Biden case, we have public information of contacts, public record that his son indeed was in that company facing investigation and he also admitted of dealing with the removal of the prosecutor. That plus nothing equals conflict of interest, but that plus crime committed due to his son equals major corruption. So do the math, kid, either way, you loose. If you claim that what Biden did doesn't deserve investigation, you must also admit that Russia Collusion is a hoax, and if you want to stick by Russia Collusion, Biden needs a serious investigation. Why don't you go down with some grace, don't be desperate.
    1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. Again, pal you're not thinking. If we applied the same kind of idiotic reasoning as such just because some people want it for all the wrong reasons then it should be legal, we would've still have slavery in the country. Think about that for a second. This isn't a debate on whether a product is banned or not. This a debate about whether do we uphold the value of human rights. Including the rights for the unborn, and by the way, the unborn is also one of the most important things to Lincoln when he decided to take a war against slavery. "Not just about freeing millions born into bondage, but also for millions others to come". Think about that, really hard. When you base your entire argument on the case that because many said it, it's automatically true. You're giving up yourself into mob ruling and destroying democracy, which is a thing that can only work when it's based on logic provided by well educated leaders and electorates. If you think that my reply is too far fetched, I recommend that you spend the time to really read the entire reply. Your way of thinking, is wrong, and maybe it doesn't seem much, now, but that way of thinking, without control, can destroy our entire society, like what's going on right now with mob ruling all over the place? Clear? And don't try to steer the debate, kid. Corruption isn't a part of the system, it's a part of human nature, or any nature, because we're imperfect creatures. So either actually think of actual solutions , or shut up and let the actual people fighting for the country do their jobs. FINALLY, AGAIN, IT'S NOT A RIGHT TO VIOLATE OTHERS BASIC RIGHTS.
    1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986.  @Andrew-it7fb  When Republican passed it, it was necessary. You want to know why it's necessary? No vaccine and the pandemic just started about a month. The Democrats passed it after a year, where there are vaccines, and people starting to go back to work. See the difference, dummy? Giving you morphine after surgery is called necessary, giving you morphine after you've been discharged for a while is a felony. So is Biden in control of Congress or not? Trump complains that he doesn't have control of Congress, he's Trump, outsider, nobody supports Mitch McConnell over Trump, but now Biden's in charge, is there a fraction fighting going on? Who's Biden blaming except himself? He got his whole party behind him, the crook was there for 40 years. And kid, the supply chain only affects products that actually need a supply chain that you can't control, usually electronics and high tech devices, where you make components overseas. Exactly what supply chain problem does your local supermarket faces that the government can't solve when they sell food? Americans are so extravagant that they're making their everyday food in foreign countries now? Or is it your government so useless that they can't even control the policies to help the "local" supply chain? You force them to close down without fair cause, you give free money to everybody without any "labor" behind it to compensate for the money. And you wonder why the prices are increasing? Unlike much of you freeloaders, some people have to work for the money they earned and they don't get free money, but they have to buy the same products that you freeloaders are now taking a large part of supply out of. Products that you did not labor enough to compensate for. Sick, isn't it.
    1
  2987.  @Andrew-it7fb  What rich people was help by giving money to unemployed people? The March bill is an extension of the 2020 Bill, genius, extension at the absolutely wrong time. If the government doesn't have control over the economy, the does any of it's policy matters? Quantitative easing, lowering interest rates. They have been doing that for years, if they all means nothing, then why are they doing it? Or is it those policies mean something, but you are just blind if the government can do something and Biden is doing nothing, then your fantasy is shattered. People don't want to work? How about stop giving them money for not working? That's why the relief bill extension is stupid. The Government doesn't have total control, it still has a lot of control. They're paying people not to work, who's forcing them to do that? God? Again, with every sentence you type, you further proves Biden horrible policies is affecting the economy. Covid is over, pal, people may die from the virus, but the economy activities impact of it is nearly gone, 48 states have lifted restrictions, more jobs are being brought back meaning jobs can be brought back. People can go to work, why aren't they going to work? It has been going on for 3 months, that's 1/4 year, long enough. Government's role, they're paying people not to work, whose fault is that? Those studies you mention is what sane people called fake science, completely unprovable, unverifiable claims that idiots pretend as if they're concrete scientific facts, as if they're solid as Newton's 3 laws of physics. How about you not use make belief study as argument? Trump time is over, now it's Biden's time, what has Biden done? If there is no role of the Government in manufacturing the vaccine, why is every "scientific" prediction of those dummy experts turned out to be wrong? They claimed vaccines were 4 to 5 years away, what changed in their predictions? You think companies are struggling in technology or funding? No, pal, the only thing they're struggling in is testing and data, which can only be done by following the Government regulation of human life. That is why the Chinese and the Russians can develop vaccines quicker than the US, their government controls testing regulations. The only reason the US vaccine can match the testing process and available today. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-infectious-diseases-politics-virus-outbreak-ef4354a02d857ef70190b087eb737986 Of course, you dummies criticize him but you use the results that he delivered. What happened to "vaccines were 4 years away"? What changed in your prediction if it's based on facts? Here's a clue of how the vaccine research works, kid. You start of with a theory and a sample, this is easy, every country can do it. and then you do testing, you make modification by examining the test results, test again the new sample and do it again until you have the desirable result there's no miracle formula that company just "figured out" by themselves, there's no genius, no breakthrough behind this vaccine, it's just normal research, which can only be expedited by cutting corners, which Trump took a gamble, and it paid off. Companies don't need US government funding, idiot, big pharma are paying Congressman to cut corners on testing. Which is exactly what Trump did, you are using a vaccine that is developed under his time span in record breaking time. Show some gratitude. I took Economic Course on the sidelines and realized that it's a hoax taught mostly by idiots like you, who have no idea what real science is. Idiots who suffer no consequences for disgusting actions affecting millions of lives, I'm an Aerospace Engineer, I make mistakes, people die and I may go to prison or loose my job. You are the idiots who study Economics to do what? Razzle Dazzle unemployed people? The foundation behind Economics studies are logical thinking and data processing, which you apparently do not have, which makes you taking those courses useless. You're like AOC, Economics Bachelorette turns Waitress and now a joke. What entire world is having supply chain issues? Where in the developed world is there inflation like in the US? Which country is paying people not to work? That policy can be done if there's less people and higher taxes, but no, that's not the US, so no country is facing problems like the US, pal. They're much smarter, if you want to pay people, at least have a reserve big enough to do so through higher tax and some sort of tyrannical dictatorship on prices. Nobody is doing this as dumb as Joe Biden, giving people free money and then not restricting prices. Except maybe African countries, but are they your role models? Most economist have no answer, pal, they're like you, they're morons. They don't have a clue what's causing what and their theory can never be verified or prove. You see, because you went to an institution that gave you a "degree" and just because you think that the degree means something, that's not the truth. Most economist solved less problems than a Janitor. At least a janitor keeps a clean floor, an economist like you, or an overwhelming majority of them can't even keep a balanced checkbooks because that is a useless degree taught mostly by useless people, making you less money than a waitress. Maybe that's why AOC turned to waitressing after her "economic degree" People who can actually make money with those degrees require more than the child play knowledge they keep in colleges. Usually they have to study more of financial analysis and actually do the jobs has nothing to do with micro or macro economics just to get relationships in the insider trading world. To solve a problem, you need data, "economists" like you take data from make belief, can not be verified, can not be proven, and they're jokes in the scientific community. They're rip off versions of the theories people developed in the 1800s, possible late 1900s, they're not new, they're not sane, they're not accurate at all. So before you brag about your incompetence, I suggest you get back down to Earth.
    1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128.  @theprofessional1375  Again, pal, no jurisdiction organization can never make a credible "investigation". CNN can't even do a thorough investigation in America, it's quite laughable to think they can do "investigation" in Russia. Get your head out of your ass. And of course, the Navalny poisoning is another joke, it's laughable because Russia was denied and contact to the investigation, a biased one sided investigation made by the Germans, who's practically American's puppet. They made a claim and then a bunch of request, that's not how investigation works. Nemtsov assassination happen when he was walking, that I was mistaken about, but again such assassination can not be proven to have any ties with the Russian government. Your whole rant about "surveillance camera" and Kremlin camera is total conspiracy theory. Where is this source? Any link? Anything? You again mistaken the Crimea situation. nobody installed a government to hold a referendum, the same parliament of Crimea that was voted on before the 2014 coup in Kiev voted to install Aksyonov as the Prime Minister and that some parliament voted for the referendum. Was that vote "fair"? Nobody knows, because there's no footages inside the building, it has the same credibility with the vote to remove Yanukovych in Kiev a few weeks ago, when protestors broke into the parliament of Ukraine and cut off all communication. You can't just recognize coup you like and ignore coup you don't like, pal. Troops might have been there since February 20th, but they never made a move until there was a coup in Kiev. So blame the coup in Kiev, Putin was masterful at predicting the events, wasn't he. The Westerners think they can just back a coup in the capital and the minor states or "Oblast" will just fall in line? No chance. The referendum questions were quite clear, join Russia or stays independent. The people did not choose to stay independent and be a part of Ukraine, they chose to join Russia. It didn't achieve a majority, it achieved a super majority. Crimea is not a part of Ukraine anymore after that 2014 coup where the impeachment of Yanukovych violated the Ukraine Constitution, after that event, the Ukraine country is under a new ruler that defies the previous constitution, making those previous attachments useless. You can't just chose the coup you like and the abandon the coup you don't like, mate. Because the removal of Yanukovych was already unconstitutional, any actions the latter follows such event, caused by the ousted of the legitimate President over the entire territory of Crimea, which is Yanukovych, any actions following his impeachment is no longer legal under the Ukrainian Constitution. Again, you can't just violate this section of the constitution and then force the other part onto everybody else. Zelensky was voted to be the President of a version of Ukraine to no longer include Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. That version of Ukraine does not exist in the Ukraine Constitution. After the coup in Kiev in 2014, those places are no longer part of Ukraine, which makes any claim of Zelensky being a legitimate President under the old Ukrainian Constitution completely voided. Again, you can't just violate the law where you like and then force other people to follow that same law just because you don't like them. The people who orchestrated the coup should have thought it through before organizing it that way.
    1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151.  @heroes8844  Oh, poor child, what's wrong? You're unemployed due to your own stupidity and incompetence? Pal, that's life, deal with it. Low wages like I said, is due to low level of labor. And yes, if you're stupid, that's what you get. The pathetic people like you just love to blame the society instead of actually working. "Eastern countries", pathetic, kid. That's not even remotely true. Eastern countries are where they live the best sort of lives, because despite being poor because you're not going to starve, the food products are always lower than expected, because they're farming oriented, and due to the Eastern family tradition, you're more easily asked for help from relatives. And in the top countries with wealth inequality, the top 20, none of them is in Asia. The Kim family are con men, documentation fraud and thieves. So yeah, nice covering for criminals. I never imply taking what I "think" is rightfully mine, there are certain stuff that are rightfully "mine" by the law, you idiot. I'm okay to be rich with what I earned, not what I think I earned, why is logic confusing to you. If I work and get pay, the payment is lawfully mine, doesn't matter what I think, it's lawfully mine. Society not forgiving? More like morons are being cowards and don't dare to admit their own incompetence. Minimum wage? Maybe stop providing just minimum labor? You don't have the right to kill people because you "feel" disrespected. And surely other people have the right to say what they think about you, doesn't matter how you "feel" Is reality too harsh for sjws?
    1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206.  @davidross1839  No, it's you who are mistaken about what the system is doing, drug prices should be lower but that is not correlated with healthcare programs. You're using marginal argument, you're using only a minor aspect of the entire issue, drug prices to cover for ripping people off by forcing them to pay for other people's healthcare with higher taxes. Don't be a hypocrite. The US does have public healthcare, it's very bad and nobody wants it, that's why people work to get private. And the population thing, here's some math, the more people you have, the more resource you'll need to maintain a standard level of quality, more money, which 50% of the population doesn't pay a dime of. So yeah, study some math. Insulin cost 10 times more here because there is no regulation on the price of drugs, not because of people not having healthcare, moron. Countless drugs are cheaper in the US comparing to Canada, they just don't make the newspaper front because you idiots don't look. Stop reading propaganda pieces. Infant mortality doesn't depend on healthcare system either, you moron. Unless you're stupid, childrens are only taken care of by the hospitals in about 2 days and then they're off to the parents, the answer might be because 50% of this country is lazy ass, just like you, horrible people who neglect their parental duties. You're just making up lies, kid. And another lie you just created, Rand Paul came to Canada for a specialized hospital mainly focus on the problem which he was facing, not to get a body check or anything else. So yeah, if you want hernia repairing, go to Canada. But Thoracic surgery, cancer research, brain surgery, in the top 10 of the world, about 4-5 are in America. Stop with the lies, kid, it's getting pitiful.
    1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. And it's incredibly pathetic that none of you morons could actually post something to prove your nonsensical point. Do it, give out a few examples, try to talk to the point, moron. I'll gladly dedicate my time educating a bunch of unemployed idiots. Bring it on, if you have the balls to put your dignity where your mouths are. Give out some points on how that stupid plan of medicare for all could be paid for. Except for that one study that did not say "medicare for all will save us 2 trillions". It pointed out due to the new "sufficiency" created through drug distribution by the government, 2 trillions will be saved. Unfortunately, the report didn't mention on what will differs from the current situation. If medicare for all is applied, in order to achieve that fantasy saving of 2 trillions, all American citizens must comply to that unrealistic program, destroying the free market, insurance companies, and probably the entire federal budget credibility, because to achieve that 32 trillion dollars mark over 10 years, the tax rate would have to be doubled immediately and then still have to be raised one more time, want to know why, read the report. And again, inequality when the top 1% will again, pay for more free stuff for idiots. Here's a simple logic, if the poor can't do anything to save their own asses, do you expect them to do anything when all of their living is paid for by somebody else? There, fact check, that, you have all the time you need. Give out some replies, idiot. If you can't, I suggest that you stop believing in this delusional "Latinas" or whatever the term she uses to attract unemployed people, and get a job.
    1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381. 1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. @WolframaticAlpha The same thing happened in America with your The Great Recession. Economic crisis that are caused by the imbalance between supply and demands, as well as bubbles always happen. But the "debt ceiling" is nothing like that. Actually, it is that, but it's much more severe, because unlike the companies in Japan who dared to cut spending and paid of their debt with real money, real labor value. America has nothing like that, you've committed into a trap. More and more social services, with zero way of recouping the money. In the lost decade or the Great Recession, what happened was a bubble of overvalued assets that led to too much debt being accumulated for assets that are not worth that much. However, those crises happened to companies, which led to a reduction in economic activities. This is different, in this case, America itself is a company, a company that serves the American people, for a rate of 100% continuously loosing money. America have overvalued it's own people. The American population wellbeing doesn't worth the money the government is giving them, because the American population, overwhelming majority of them do not contribute back enough. And you can not cut the spending because it's too late, the money you've already wasted on social services to unworthy people can never be recouped. And to continue those policies shall just keep sending you into the abyss. Normal countries have debt to pay for something that is actually solid and exchangeable, America waster their debt entirely. Unlike a company that took on debt for a shot of gigantic revenue later. In Japan, the government took on debt to rebuild their infrastructure, which are used and paid for everyday by the Japanese people, it's a solid source of revenue. The American people have used their debt to give out free healthcare, which just waste the money entirely because once the healthcare is used, it's gone.
    1
  3392. @WolframaticAlpha No, pal, you're confusing stability with temporary quietness. There has been no crash due to social spending because massive social spending has only been a thing since Lyndon B Johnson formed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. What we are suffering now is the result of such stupid action, this is the first wave of the consequences. Somebody tried to ride a car off a cliff to jump to the Moon, even though there's no "precedent" of that happening because nobody was dumb enough to try it, by logic, we can still see that it's a stupid and bound to fail action. This is what US social spending is like. Spending money you don't have, and are never going to have, increasing the debt not by billions or dozens of billions, but by hundreds of billions every year. I'm not comparing the current situation to the cause of the 2008 Recession, so your entire paragraph there is useless. I'm comparing how you have reacted to the 2008 Recession, and how such reaction can never be done in this current situation. In 2008 Recession, America bailed out the banks, so that the Banks could live and regain their lost profits by doing business off the loans. Unfortunately for America, when America fails, their regressing population can never regain what they have wasted off. The money they've wasted is too much, it's now too late. Cutting social spending is the only way to save money, you can't make money out of thin air, so therefore not to overspend, you have to cut your spending. Don't confuse stability with temporary quietness. In Norway, there is some sort of stability, because low population, enough productive people to cover their asses. In America, not so much, gigantic of population, overwhelmingly unproductive people. Mandatory spending by law that makes no sense. You have temporary quietness for a while, but now it's going to burn. There's no such thing as "pure capitalism" or "pure socialism", and that's not the argument the point is that this plan is pure stupidity. Even in a "socialist" state, you can only spend what you have. The Americans are spending what they don't have at an alarming rate without plans to ever recoup. Norway or Japan model shall give them about 50 to 70 years before they face a "debt crisis". America shall face that crisis within the next decade or so, because as American population grows less competent, the money America committed to spend increases heavily. Like I told you, it's a trap, no country in the world dared to behave this stupidly. It's not just the social spending, it's the "reckless" social spending.
    1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. 1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. 1
  3418. 1
  3419. Kai don't realize that they all looked easy because they were made to look effortless. You know what moves are actually easy, EXO, BTS, all of those boygroup nonsense nowadays. They're aren't doing much, they're doing moves but not actually moving much of the body. EXO Monster is a clear example, the majority of their body doesn't move, they're usually still, 2 factors, the songs are slower and the dance move are easier. A piece of advice, if during a span of 5 seconds, you move 2 seconds and stand still for 3, the time you rest is more than the time you dance. Dance that really cost your stamina, TVXQ and 2PM. large body movements and jumping up and immediately down, always moving. They look intense because they were choreographed to look like they're intense but in countless form, male dance are way easier due to types of action required to appeal masculinity or femininity. Here's a clue, when there's a slide move, female has to slide with their body straight while men can crunch down. The male version looks more intense but it's actually way easier. When the female slides, the other leg has to endure the entire body weight lifting up and down, but when men slides, because they're already bending down, they don't have to bend again. Example, EXO dancing king. Do some actual dancing, pal. Spinning isn't the hard part, physic wise, the hard part is minimal body movement to show effortlessness in dance moves, that also decrease the body capability of generating strength, and that's only happen with female dance.
    1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447. 1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. 1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. 1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. 1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619. 1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622. 1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626. 1
  3627. 1
  3628. 1
  3629. 1
  3630. 1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633. 1
  3634. 1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 1
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659. 1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666. 1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679.  @schwaaard  That's because the idea is being executed poorly by a bunch of incompetent people. If a person can't do math properly, is the fault lies in math? or the fault lies with the person? And no, your argument is absolutely wrong, because you can use statistics to summarize whether having a certain attributes such as gender, race, actually means that candidate will have a higher probability of facing adversity, providing you're doing it correctly. Most people are doing it the wrong way, doesn't mean that the methodology is wrong. DEI has always existed in human civilization, what, you think that's some new term never thought of before? Treating people as a whole, including their background, their story, not just one indicator of merit has always been around. Go study real history. Looking at the whole picture of human beings, that concept has existed at least since the ancient Egyptians. I'll do an example for you in the case of Joel Embiid. The reason why they even set up a scouting place in Cameroon in the first place is because they've applied the DEI spirits, on lowering the standard of minimum requirement of official competition result to set up a scouting location, based on the situation of the country. A poorly connected country, no organized basketball, players with far lower ability, but because of the socio-economic factor of the place, their "merit" indicated via official competition results was ignored. Contrary to places like in China, etc. In case of Joel Embiid, they did say that because he's Cameroonian, never played basketball till he's 15, his lower quality skillset can be put aside and judge him completely different from how they would judge a black kid in America playing basketball from when he was a kid. You're intentionally twisting, lying about an idea and then pretend as if your version, which is full of lies are the official version. Get over yourself. Nobody judges one applicant solely based on one single criteria, you're making that up. What's actually happening is that they're judging multiple criterias and in those multiple criterias, race and gender plays a role in deciding the final result. Another easy example, if an Asian kid and a black kid, same middle class background, no noticeable difference in every single category, by statistics, the black kid will be more talented than the Asian one academic wise, because statistically speaking, unfortunately black middle class families are usually less educated, or has a less impressive education. You need to deal with that reality, now does that principle means that it will be right every single cases? No. But it will be right in a majority of cases providing a large enough number of samples. DEI was exactly why Joel Embiid was found, because the DEI spirit is about looking at the whole picture. If they had just applied a crude merit approach, they would have said that this guy has never played basketball in his life, he's horrible compared to his peers who started basketball earlier, he's not good enough. DEI spirit focuses on the actual merit of human beings, what you're focusing is not merit, it's crude and false version of what is called merit.
    1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692. 1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 1
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705. 1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709. 1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. 1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716. 1
  3717. 1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. 1
  3728. 1
  3729. 1
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 1
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. 1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. Yeah, that's not how it goes. The Article of Impeachment cited bribery but they can not impeach him based on bribery, they have no proof at all of bribery. Professor Dershowitz explained this, abuse of power is a loose term that can not be defined. Bribery is a crime that can be impeached, did they impeach Trump based on bribery? No, they have no proof, so they make up a term, "Abuse of Power", claiming that his actions seemingly is "bribery" is a part of abuse of power, despite not being able to prove it at all, because if they can prove it, they would've impeached him on bribery. You're arguing for the pathetic side here, pal. The House impeached him based on bribery, they claim that there "could" be bribery and then because they can not prove it, just leave it there, and use such nonsense to impeached him using "Abuse of Power". When you cite bribery to impeach for "Abuse of power", you don't need to prove bribery specifically, because "bribery" is not the main impeachment clause. But however, even if they use "bribery" as a "citation", it has already been destroyed by the rest of Trump's lawyer. So yeah, they lost n all grounds. If they impeached him based on bribery, they has to prove bribery, they can not, they failed to. And if they do make an argument for bribery, it's surprisingly easy to be countered, so they can't do it because they'll be destroyed even more. They have nothing, so they have to make up "Abuse of power", because "Abuse of Power" is a nonsensical term that has been rejected by the founding Fathers, it sounds severe enough to fool the public. Think about it, lawyer.
    1
  3760. 1
  3761. 1
  3762. 1
  3763. 1
  3764. 1
  3765. 1
  3766. 1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773.  @dillanrojas6434  How about getting money for those programs and keep the police, dummy? Yes, he hope police will disappear in the future due to better lifestyle. That's why he's a moron, it will never disappear, because human nature is full of flaws, criminals keep existing, doesn't matter how much nonsense treatment you put into it. How about stop living behind the screen and get back to real life? Visit a maximum security prison, let's see how you treat those people? The young man who looted, shoot and kill a police officer last week, your policy of "treatment" failed again and again. Pathetic. You're allocating resources to all the wrong places, because those resources are needed for the police, dummy. Why don't you use your own money to fund those fantasy treatment and leave the police alone, because unlike your failed programs of treating criminals like they're naive children, the police force actually works. The first thing is the claim that "police is the tool of violence and social control". That is pure stupidity, "police is the tool of law enforcement and social security". Why don't you go to the victims of criminals, all skin color, and ask them if they feel safer when you remove the police and replace them with psychiatrists? Because psychiatrists can't defend citizens against criminals, clear? Doesn't matter what reason you commit the crime, people still get harm by those crime. So before you worry for the criminals, how about you worry for the victims of the criminals? Because those victims will be hurt a lot more before you can help any criminal, clear?
    1
  3774. 1
  3775. 1
  3776.  @lolo_o4309     People don't want to be poor as well, but they can't work or have the willpower to not be poor. Sad life. Why don't you care about the victims instead of the criminals? Have some sense of moral values. Addicts before you can help them, they have already harmed dozens of people, care for them, care for the victims, pal. That's a conclusion that you've been avoided. Career criminal is drug addict who went into prison 5 different times, pulled a gun on a pregnant woman, threatened to kill her and rob her house. Mr George Floyd, honorable criminal. That is career criminal. They have all kind of support and employment for poor people, too much of those support, you're just pathetic. If he wants to work, get a job, Amazon is hiring, local restaurants, they pay little but that's what you get for having no skill whatsoever, use your free time to gain more skill. Look pal, society doesn't have the responsibility to take care for you. Ask the real poor people who got out of it. It's due to you, pal. Not the system, not the white man, it's you. Americans are the most privileged morons in the world, and you whine about how the system is against you, no, dummy. You are against you. Your educational system is a joke, I don't understand how it's possible not to be a straight A students in your schools. And because being a straight A is that easy, your college education is as easy as it can get, just don't major in gender study. Compare it to the Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese. Wake up. Unless you're way too lazy.
    1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782.  @rbc812  Buddy, you need stop to making things up. First off, Lee Kuan Yew might have advocated for Singaporean unique cultural identity, but it's very clear how the Chinese origin community owns the overwhelming majority of the wealth. They speak Chinese and they celebrate Chinese holidays, so call it what you want but you cannot hide the truth. Those are still Chinese cultures, not Singaporeans. Singapore might be the name of the land but the culture existed way before that. And yes, the civilization does translate to ownership of territory, that's the entire point. Self determination doesn't apply to rebellious people, like I said, that island has belonged to China long before any of these "invaders" set foot on it. Exactly how do you think this ownership issues work? You go plant a flag and if you stay for 10-20 years, it automatically becomes your land? No. The land belongs to the entity which rightfully inhibits the land for an extended amount of time, at least 200 years and above. That's the norm. And with that norm, Taiwan belongs to China, as recognized by 192 countries on Earth. The people that has been inhabiting that island have always been "Chinese", now their governmental system might have changed since the 50s, but they are literally from the same culture, same civilization and they're subjugated to the decision of the mass, because the only reason they can live there in the first place is because they have been part of China the country before communism or capitalism government. Show some respect.
    1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787.  @rbc812  For the Singaporean issue, homie, stuffing the calendar with holidays do not change the math and physics of that island. The overwhelming majority of the people are of Chinese origin, speak Mandarin, celebrate Chinese rooted holidays and they hold all the wealth. So why don't you deal with that reality? And no, China claim to Taiwan is not just historical claim, it's the most notable recent historical claim, that distinguishes it, because otherwise no country can ever have a claim over anything, because the territory can just be invaded and then new people can be put in and according to your logic, the invaders can now claim self determination on land that they steal. That's not how it works. The historical claim is crucial, especially to significant continuous claims. Taiwan was under Japan rule for less than 60 years, under ROC rule for less than 20 years, it belongs to the Qing Dynasty for 250 years. And after 1945, you can no longer claim new territory, therefore the most significant owners of Taiwan is the Qing Dynasty, aka China. Furthermore, the only reason ROC can claim Taiwan is because the Japanese were returning it to China the country, which back then was represented by the ROC. Government can change, but that country remains, therefore, you literally admitted that Taiwan belongs to China the country, whether it's ruled by this party or another party. Do you see the difference in numbers? If you don't know much about mathematics, it's best to stay quiet, homie.
    1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798. 1
  3799. 1
  3800. 1
  3801. 1
  3802. 1
  3803. 1
  3804. 1
  3805. 1
  3806. 1
  3807. 1
  3808. 1
  3809. 1
  3810. 1
  3811. 1
  3812. 1
  3813. 1
  3814. 1
  3815. 1
  3816. 1
  3817. 1
  3818. 1
  3819. 1
  3820. 1
  3821. 1
  3822. 1
  3823. 1
  3824. 1
  3825. 1
  3826.  @cellphone7223  I don't think you understand how economic works, what regulation means and what market demand is. You're like a cow regurgitating what's been fed down it's throat. Friedman would have been ashamed of you. No economy exists without regulation, that's a fact, regulation of the government is absolutely crucial in ensuring the viability of an "economy", because economy ties directly to human wellbeing, and when human wellbeing is not ensured, they revolt. Friedman argument of less government intervention applies to very specific types of intervention in the American economy. And even his policies include countless "regulations", for example regulations that you're not allowed to commit financial fraud, business fraud, securities fraud, that food providers must meet basic eatable and drinkable conditions. All of those regulations are to ensured that once the free market goes into operation, it doesn't lead to social unrest by causing harm. That's in the US, where there's a minimum living condition embedded within the structure of the country. Argentina is not the US, it's scenario is different, the policies are different, their corporation structure is different, their population is different. For example, if a gigantic, significant number of people is living in poverty, far more than the US in the 1980s when Friedman is alive. Suddenly taking away intervention policies directly affect their wellbeing, while the intervention of the "free market" takes far longer than the time those people have on hand. So if the free market takes 5-7 years to adjust and get the economy back on track. Are you going to let the significant pool of the population starve to death due to rising prices? You're trying to solve an infinitely complex problems with multiple moving parts based on a rudimentary answer Friedman give to a kid in 2 minute Q&A clip. Wake up. This is way over your head, pal, so stop regurgitating stuff you don't understand one bit.
    1
  3827. 1
  3828. 1
  3829. 1
  3830. 1
  3831. 1
  3832. 1
  3833. 1
  3834.  @antarchy1  Actually he can. Once you study the higher ups aspect of economics, you realize that the potential to create wealth is the most heavily wanted aspect of wealth. Because it comes with much more perks than normal cash. The guy who wins the powerball has a lot more cash than Elon Musk. But what Elon has, cash can't buy. And yes, his followers are willing to buy his stuff. They're going to buy more. I don't know how you white oppressor thinks but mistaken that criminal Floyd guy for the black hero is insane. Robbing a house, threatening a pregnant woman, using counterfeit money, doing drugs. That's the role model black parents want their children not to follow. Black people support Kanye greatly, pal. How do you know, you're not even black. Let me give you a clue how the world works, you do not represent the adult population in America. In case you hadn't noticed, you lunatics are the overwhelming minority. The riots that happened in the name of criminal Floyd is liked by nobody except insane people like you. Real people has their family to worry about. No privilege time to go rob a convenient store in the name of justice. Keep it real, homie. You sad people said the same thing when he endorsed Trump, when he try to run for President, and his values has gone no where but up. How many times can you deny reality, pal? His assets are not speculative, they're very much real, his connection to the black community is much real than what Jay-Z, Meek Mill, other rich black guy has, and that is way more powerful than credits. Michael Bloomberg spent half a billion dollars cash and people still hate his guts. Go study real economics pal, go meet real people, not the ones inside your bubble. You claim he is crazy, he views you as an ignorant oppressor, the difference is that his community agrees with him and not you.
    1
  3835. 1
  3836. 1
  3837. 1
  3838. 1
  3839. 1
  3840. 1
  3841. 1
  3842. 1
  3843. 1
  3844. 1
  3845. 1
  3846. 1
  3847. 1
  3848. 1
  3849. 1
  3850. 1
  3851. 1
  3852. 1
  3853. 1
  3854. 1
  3855. 1
  3856. 1
  3857. 1
  3858. 1
  3859. 1
  3860. 1
  3861. 1
  3862. 1
  3863. 1
  3864. 1
  3865. 1
  3866. 1
  3867. 1
  3868. 1
  3869. 1
  3870. 1
  3871. 1
  3872. 1
  3873. 1
  3874. 1
  3875. 1
  3876. 1
  3877. 1
  3878. 1
  3879. 1
  3880. 1
  3881. 1
  3882. 1
  3883. 1
  3884. 1
  3885. 1
  3886. 1
  3887. 1
  3888. 1
  3889. 1
  3890. 1
  3891. 1
  3892. 1
  3893. 1
  3894. 1
  3895. 1
  3896. 1
  3897. 1
  3898. 1
  3899. 1
  3900. 1
  3901. 1
  3902. 1
  3903. 1
  3904. 1
  3905. 1
  3906. 1
  3907. 1
  3908. 1
  3909. 1
  3910. 1
  3911. 1
  3912. 1
  3913. 1
  3914. 1
  3915. 1
  3916. 1
  3917. 1
  3918. 1
  3919. 1
  3920. 1
  3921. 1
  3922. 1
  3923. 1
  3924. 1
  3925. 1
  3926. 1
  3927. 1
  3928. 1
  3929. 1
  3930. 1
  3931. 1
  3932. 1
  3933. 1
  3934. 1
  3935. 1
  3936. 1
  3937.  @careneh33  And that's exactly why you're a fraud. You justify your science not by your methodology, not by the validity of it, not by the result it got, but because you got them in publications. If your journal is open access, they're probably not that high of a quality. There are very few high quality open access journal. Quality over quantitiy. Overwhelming majority of high impact factor journals are not open access. So I guess that you published in mostly non prestigious journals, which defeats the entire purpose of publishing it in a journal at all. Why would you submit it to a journal if the journal is not high quality? You must be a rookie or you have bad scientific training, not all journals are the same, not all scientific venues are the same, not even all scientific field are the same. Some are incredibly more prestigious than another and I'm speaking from actual experience that even the most prestigious of them all are filled with inner circle influence. If you're not aware of this fact, maybe there's an even bigger problem, that your field is not really scientific field, not a natural science field. But your field is something of a make belief field, like psychology, or tourism, or economy. Social sciences or make belief sciences, poor discipline. Which are fine, but unfortunately when I say not all science are the same, I specifically means that kind of science. The fraudulent science. So exactly what kind of scientific field are you in that you think that there are no fraud? Which is nearly impossible because people who submitted to prestigious journals are either editors themselves, had their contacts or mentors as editors on those journals. In my field, mechanics and electronics, that's inevitable.
    1
  3938. 1
  3939. 1
  3940. 1
  3941. 1
  3942. 1
  3943. 1
  3944. 1
  3945. 1
  3946. 1
  3947. 1
  3948. 1
  3949. 1
  3950. 1
  3951. 1
  3952. 1
  3953. 1
  3954. 1
  3955. 1
  3956. 1
  3957. 1
  3958. 1
  3959. 1
  3960. 1
  3961. 1
  3962. 1
  3963. 1
  3964. 1
  3965. 1
  3966. 1
  3967. 1
  3968. 1
  3969. 1
  3970. 1
  3971. 1
  3972. 1
  3973. 1
  3974. 1
  3975. 1
  3976. 1
  3977. 1
  3978. 1
  3979. 1
  3980. 1
  3981. 1
  3982. 1
  3983. 1
  3984. 1
  3985. 1
  3986. 1
  3987. 1
  3988. 1
  3989. 1
  3990. 1
  3991. 1
  3992. 1
  3993. 1
  3994. 1
  3995. 1
  3996. 1
  3997. 1
  3998. 1
  3999. 1
  4000. 1
  4001. 1
  4002. 1
  4003. 1
  4004. 1
  4005. 1
  4006. 1
  4007. 1
  4008. 1
  4009. 1
  4010. 1
  4011. 1
  4012. 1
  4013. 1
  4014. 1
  4015. 1
  4016. 1
  4017. 1
  4018. 1
  4019. 1
  4020. 1
  4021. 1
  4022. 1
  4023. When you try it, you would know. Simply put, putting that really cool VR is a lot more interesting than looking at your phone. VR gaming hasn't existed yet, because it lacks the technology to do so. Compare the earliest model of smartphones to now. The volume of content hasn't exploded at that time because the processing power of such earlier phones are too weak. VR content creator depends on the level of VR goggles. And because very few people can now own a high quality one, they hasn't made it yet. Like the development of high end gaming, to get one, you need high end PC, only when the PC are powerful enough does the gaming market booms. When the goggles are powerful enough, which some already are, they just need to make them cheaper, once those goggles are cheaper, content creator will start going in. VR gaming holds more potential than just normal 2d screen gaming, but all the cash poured into game development are in traditional 2d gaming, onto PC and consoles game. Once those money start pouring into VR gaming, everybody will want to play those games. Metaverse is just a part of the the virtual reality experience, but if Meta owns the technology to develop the cheapest yet also the best VR goggles, they'll also profit big time from the VR gaming industry. With cloud computing gaming, maybe eventually you don't even have to own a high end PC for the high end goggles, so the only thing you need is the hardware, which is the VR goggles. And to your question of why don't people meet up with their friends, this is easily explained if you have Facebook consumer data. The amount of time people spent chatting on their Messenger and Whatsapp far exceed the amount of time they spend meeting in real life by a landslide, this is easily observable, people are getting more and more detached from the real life. It's not a good thing but it's happening, Meta just want to cash in on it. Right now you can only video call each other, what happens if you can play of round of virtual golf together in the metaverse, something pretty difficult to do in real life because most people aren't rich enough to play golf. The quality of the experience will depends on the quality of the goggles, and the quality of the goggles are going up. And the reason why don't meet up in the real world is because the real world is limited, instead of meeting up with each other that takes 3 to 5 hours, people would just rather chat over Messenger immediately without having to make plans. It's easier to connect in the virtual world. It's not a good thing but it's happening, even if you're against it, countless idiots are still doing it. Frankly, posting your social life on to Instagram or Facebook is just ridiculous, it's like passive bragging where you post stuff intentionally for other people to see, it's quite shameless and quite dangerous if the wrong people are targeting you, but people aren't built to be logical, they do a lot of dumb stuff. For example now instead of having a profile page, in the Metaverse you can get a profile room where you create a room of virtual experiences to express yourself. The application is endless, because it brings back new experience, and people always fall for that. Twitter is Facebook but a lot shorter, as if posting shorter messages means you'll get more meaningful messages. Tiktok is YouTube, but also shorter, same argument. People are lazy and they behave in illogical ways, Meta just want to cash in. Indulging somebody stupidity is in a way, serving your customer. Can't blame them for that. If a company should only exist if it helps society, then Apple for sure should not exist, they sell average products for sky high prices, bad consumerism. Amazon shouldn't exist, they treat their workforce quite inhumanely compared to other type of online shopping applications even in Asia. But hey, they turn a profit, people are not that smart, they do stuff that are dumb, and these companies took advantage of those things.
    1
  4024. 1
  4025. 1
  4026. 1
  4027. 1
  4028. 1
  4029. 1
  4030. 1
  4031. 1
  4032. 1
  4033. 1
  4034. 1
  4035. 1
  4036. 1
  4037. 1
  4038. 1
  4039. 1
  4040. 1
  4041. 1
  4042. 1
  4043. 1
  4044. 1
  4045. 1
  4046. 1
  4047. 1
  4048. 1
  4049. 1
  4050. 1
  4051. 1
  4052. 1
  4053. 1
  4054. 1
  4055. 1
  4056. 1
  4057. 1
  4058. 1
  4059. 1
  4060. 1
  4061. 1
  4062. 1
  4063. 1
  4064. 1
  4065.  @_B.C_  Of course he's going to be able to earn it again on his own merit. Unlike you dummies, he's not a beggar living off government program. Finding new job is not that hard in this country, pal. And he always have a job as a speaker for the NRA. Heroes who shot criminals are always needed. The opportunity is endless, and even if he feels tired of the public life. Nobody forgot about Nicholas Sandmann even though it has been 2 years, NBC just laid him more money. And nice try. If you can mess Trump up with lawsuits, you would have done it. Those lawsuits are like a desperate boxer throwing a random punches. None is going to land, pal. Nobody's afraid of that, it's just sad to see how desperate you are. Bring it on. Most of the college peers are idiots, protesting self defense? If those dummies are in your college, that's probably a horrible college. He's not feared in Florida, Texas, any state where the sane people holds the majority. So again, false argument. It's not vigilante fantasy, kid. It's real human right to self defense. You want to test whether those are real or not? Try attacking somebody via a riot, you will not be missed. Perfect legal shot, innocent citizen, about half of the country supporting him. What do you have? Sad sjws holding a sign protesting him? Bring it on. When he move to Texas or Florida with the money CNN and MSNBC have to pay him. It would be amusing seeing you idiots following to protest. There will be some other thing waiting for you there by the way.
    1
  4066. 1
  4067.  @_B.C_  Oh, you actually think blue is taking over the city in Texas. Nice try, you can't even hold Virginia. Any colleges that are full of "blues" is probably a quite an incompetent college. The result of Harvard, MIT, or Stanford are not produced by their students, but are produced by their faculty members., which sometimes are blue, but definitely not stupid enough to lower themselves to the likes of you. So if he goes to a "college" where people are dumb enough to loathe him, it will be way better to leave that incompetent college. Funny thing about colleges, unlike your fake theories of red states being taken over. Colleges are actually being taken over by conservative students, why? Because the liberals are too dumb to remain there, something about sky high debt scaring incompetent people studying gender studies. Owning AR does prevent dummies like you from attacking those people in the front. And if you want to take your chances that they can't just turn around and defend themselves, go ahead. How many people did you attack and got away with it? Probably zero, if it's not zero then you're just a criminal. Scumbag either way, pal. Kyle run away, that's a sensible thing to do, if anybody had shot him in the back while he's running away, they would've been convicted for murder, study real law, kid, that's what happens. But when those aggressors rushed Kyle and attacked him, well, Kyle didn't need an eye behind his back to defend himself and those "attackers" are now dead. You try attacking people, you will be too. At least in sane states. If you got away with attacking people, you're a criminal, nothing to brag about, kid. We will come for you eventually.
    1
  4068. 1
  4069. 1
  4070. 1
  4071.  @_B.C_  Actually, there is. If you are the aggressor, for example yelling, throwing things at other, if you initiate the conflict. Your right to self defense is nulled. For example, had Joseph Rosenbaum shot Kyle, he would be charged with murder, because he initiated the conflict when he seemed out Kyle and tried to attack him. See the difference, study real law. If you see Kyle shooting at people, you are entitled to self defense. But if Kyle was defending himself and then you mistaken him for an active shooter, it's still manslaughter. Because you have mistakenly identifying the action. "Spook" here means an action directly aimed at doing something at a person. Like I said, you need to study real law, kid. It's your argument that won't hold up in court. Owning a gun, carrying it in public is legal. It is not legal for you to use that gun to kill somebody whom you initiated the conflict with or if that person is not an active shooter or such. Mistakenly identifying someone as an active shooter is your fault and you will be charged with manslaughter. Only when that person directly point the gun at you, whom you did not initiated the conflict with, then can you shoot that person. Had Kyle shot Gaige Grosskreutz from afar, that would have also been murder. But no, Grosskreutz approached Kyle, pointing a gun at him. That's what makes it self defense. See the difference, little dummy? This is a free advice, you keep that blind belief not attached to reality and you'll end up in jail. Not that it would sadden me one bit. You have no idea of stand your ground law is. Your bad interpretation of it is why it's so terrifying to have you dummies in charge. No basic understanding of the law.
    1
  4072. 1
  4073. 1
  4074. 1
  4075. 1
  4076. 1
  4077.  @_B.C_  My degree is framed at my house, like I said, can't disclose it, especially to you terrorists. And again, you need to study real law, kid. Pointing a gun at someone unprovoked, that is brandishing. In your example, you intentionally provoke an interaction by attacking the person beforehand, that's when your right to self defense is stripped away. And Kyle was swinging his gun around with the reasonable range of allowance. For example, if you strap on a gun, the barrel follows the laws of physics to spin around it's axis, at a very tiny window of time, the barrel could be pointing at somebody right before it immediately follow the trajectory of the rotation to not be pointing at somebody anymore. You can't kill somebody just for that. You need to have reasonable doubt that he or she is actually wanting to hurt you. And those doubt must be verified. You see Kyle spinning around right after shooting Rosenbaum in self defense and then you shot Kyle from afar just because it "ended up" pointing at you for less than a second, without Kyle showing any hostility towards you? That's still manslaughter, little kid. Like I said, study real law, little kid. He can't be tried for criminal assault, here's why. The dummy prosecutors of that states, as incompetent as they are did study real law, therefore they know that there's no basis for such ridiculous charge. Pointing guns or brandishing requires the proof of "intent" to harm, accidental alignment based on physical rotation doesn't cut it. Like I said, real law. Not fantasies inside your head, but real law. If you don't study that, you'll end up in jail.
    1
  4078.  @_B.C_  Sorry, pal. You can't trick me into disclosing information to terrorists. "We are coming for you eventually" is a figurative speech. You can't use out of context speech to do anything, that's another thing that had you studied law, you would've known. If you saw somebody shooting people and swing the gun around not to aim at other people, but only because he's running away and he didn't yet lower the gun down. You do not have the right to shoot that person. It would not be self defense, kid. It's manslaughter. A gun being pointed at you is not enough, you need to have reasonable doubt of intent. Brandishing means pointing INTENTIONALLY. If it's not intentional, or more narrowly speaking, directly aim towards you, if it's not direct, you have no self defense claim. Had you been there and saw Kyle from afar, it's quite clear that he doesn't know of your presence, therefore you have no claim of intention. Manslaughter charge at least. If a loaded gun is directly pointed at you with the intention of it aiming at you, you have the claim to self defense. You see Kyle turning with his gun from afar and you shoot him, that's manslaughter. You have no proof of intention of harm, no self defense. How do I put this gently, pal. A guy intentionally crash a car at you, you can shoot him. A guy driving normally from afar, which will eventually hit you if you don't move, and this far enough. You shoot him, you'll go to prison. Like I said, real law, darling. You don't study it then you'll go to prison. Rittenhouse is free but you won't be. Your life is not in reasonable danger, there's the word "reasonable" there. If you want to take a bet on whether your standard of reasonable fits with a jury. Go ahead, stupid move but one more idiot in jail won't bother me at all.
    1
  4079. 1
  4080. 1
  4081. 1
  4082. 1
  4083. 1
  4084. 1
  4085. 1
  4086. 1
  4087. 1
  4088. 1
  4089. 1
  4090. 1
  4091. 1
  4092. 1
  4093. 1
  4094. 1
  4095. 1
  4096. 1
  4097. 1
  4098. 1
  4099. Sandro Rugama Only morons will ignore the validity of people's point because they don't like how they were presented. Go back to school and learn how to think. What you're saying have no proof, the last time the Americans didn't intervene, North Korea was on it's way to merging South Korea as the South of Korea. So don't type nonsensical things about stuff you know nothing about. Want to know what will happen without the American Military, get a flight to Syria, and then go on foot to the deep territory of ISIS. Try to peace talking then, tell me the result then. If you don't know anything, don't type anything, because somehow in your delusional mindset, you think that a radical terrorist group will not invade the rest of the area just like what they did with other areas when the military defending the rest of the area leave, is that too confusing. Here's analogy, the fire will burn the wood when you throw the wood into the fire. Next thing about taxes, you clearly do not know business, kid. The top 1% is paying the most of what federal programs need, heard of maths, and they do that willingly, you want higher wages, has the workload that you done increases? Has the minimal cost of living increased? Food, water, clothing, it's all getting cheaper. What the hell do you want working with "wages", it's called society, you think the top 1% is just there and never shifts, total nonsense, wealth are created and lost everyday, everytime, the guys on Wall Street working their asses off, the guys in CEOs offices working their asses off, and you just "claim" that they're stealing??? If you're incompetent, don't come whining to better people why you're a loser.
    1
  4100. 1
  4101. Alan Gonzalez So your basic argument that the page "seemed" bias, where's the proof for that, where's your brain by using the thesis "if I don't like something, it's false". Where do you get the report that says " a lot", or is it an assumption you made based on the name which includes the word "national". Where's the number for your "a lot" statements. Why haven't there been any article about those "a lot". NIH sends the funding to researcher, and again, where's your source of claiming that researchers get money mostly from the NIH, where's that article you made up? I have a source, you don't seem to have any. Also, stop editing me out of context, no it's not because you think that healthcare should be a right, it's the fact that you do not support hard work, hard earn, as well as rooting for the poor and the lazy, you're asking for something that in intellectual mindset should never be a thing. We do not abandon people to die, it's legally required to any public hospitals to take care of people with fatal symptoms, if they actually go there. Unfortunately, those people who you claimed should have that "right", usually dies on the street, in the gutter, landfill, places that you don't want to go to, therefore don't play stupid fairy godmother and pretend that you care about those people. Illegal Immigrants, they're not eligible for medicaid, first of all, because they're criminals, read the law, go to the border, if you don't ask for something and then somebody will just, force those things on you, first of all, it's Obamacare, second of all, it's partially dictatorship. You think that we need those "illegal immigrants" ? Maybe you should go there and negotiate something that actually shows benefit, because there's none. Intentionally contributing a dollar while taking out the capacity for a 100 dollars contribution means intentionally causing damage.
    1
  4102. 1
  4103. 1
  4104. 1
  4105. 1
  4106. Sandro Rugama Oh, no, kid , I have the authority, the authority given to me by the US constitution, the freedom of speech, if you're confused. I also have the moral obligation of standing up to stupidity, in this case, and any other idiots who intoxicate the people's mind. People do not die from preventable diseases, if you actually know something about healthcare, and not information taken delusional assumptions, you'll see that people who died from "preventable diseases", didn't die at the hospital gates, they didn't die in front of a private clinic, they died in slumdogs, the landfill, places that they chose to be, getting drunk in 9 a.m. It's legally required that any public hospital have to take in patients with critical conditions, and critical diseases, otherwise men fainting at the sidewalk would be left there. Research some actual facts, kid. So you're assuming that all people from low income environment are, what? Destined to be poor? Ever heard of a job, the minimum wage system is built to provide people with basic needs, and those basic needs do not include health care, no those basic needs include the opportunity to actually get healthcare, advance things don't come to you. People from low income environment will not get a thing, if they spend all their money on programs that they should know not to spend in, such as cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, prostitutes. Are we clear on that? Not all people stay poor, the majority of the poor got poor, and not from being rich people, it's from being middle people and they started to be slackers. Name one person who died in the hospital due to lack of medicinal money? You know, doctors, they take a vow, to protect and save all living humans despite of all social status, I suggest you go and talk to some. You meant to make them pay by creating jobs??? Do you know anything about the society? The people who don't pay taxes are the people who do not work, you know, old people who retired young and have no insurance. Backpackers who take joys in not working and go camping? The unemployment rate is not due to not having enough jobs, it's due to people choose not to work, and the jobs being taken by company moving plants to foreign countries, as well as illegal immigrants who came here illegally, disrupting our system. The last 2 problems are being taken care of. If you want some proof, I suggest you read new statistics. Not by listening to Ocasio Cortez, who is claiming that the recent tax cut is wasteful and only benefits the rich, even though that same tax cut is bringing back jobs, pushing the GDP growth to over 3%, which is something that Obama admitted that he's incapable of doing. Final thing, kid. An old Chinese saying for idiots. If you know, say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how people tell whether you know. If it's too complicated, here's a direct translation. You don't know anything, so it's best not typing anything, because you're embarrassing yourself.
    1
  4107. Alan Gonzalez Some advice, kid. I suggest that you go back to school, because through your latest reply alone, I can confirm that you're even worse than what I expected. And "worse" here means that you're even more pathetic than what I previously deduced. Military ain't cheap, especially when our country is maintaining world security through that army. And despite the fact it is expensive, it's not as stupid as Ocasio Cortez plan, which is based on lies that you have been fed, and you yourself. There's no such thing as $700 trillion dollars increased, stop making up facts just because you don't have any. The latest bill on military spending increased the military budget from 500 BILLIONS, NOT TRILLIONS to 700 BILLIONS, ALSO NOT TRILLIONS. I write important facts in all caps because I've also concluded that you have trouble reading, if you're dyslexic, say the truth and you'll be sympathized, otherwise people will despise you, kid. So, to take a hundred steps further from you and Cortez fake plan, I'm gonna give you some math. IF WE DISMANTLE OUR ENTIRE ARMY, WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS THE THING KEEPING THE WORLD FROM WW3, WE WOULD STILL NOT BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THAT FAKE PLAN OF CORTEZ. BECAUSE OUR MILITARY COST 700 BILLIONS PER YEAR. CORTEZ PLAN COST US 3.3 TRILLIONS PER YEAR, AND OUR CURRENT SPENDING ON MEDICARE AND HEALTHCARE IS ONLY ONE TRILLION. MONEY DO NOT FALL FROM THE SKY, IT ALSO DO NOT APPEAR OUT OF FAKE CLAIMS SUCH AS "We have unlimited cheques for wars". THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 2008. CLEAR? Final thing, kid. An old Chinese saying for idiots. If you know, say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how people tell whether you know. If it's too complicated, here's a direct translation. You don't know anything, so it's best not typing anything, because you're embarrassing yourself.
    1
  4108. 1
  4109. 1
  4110. 1
  4111. 1
  4112. 1
  4113. 1
  4114. 1
  4115. 1
  4116. 1
  4117. 1
  4118. 1
  4119. 1
  4120. 1
  4121. 1
  4122. 1
  4123. 1
  4124. 1
  4125. 1
  4126. 1
  4127. 1
  4128. 1
  4129. 1
  4130. 1
  4131. 1
  4132. 1
  4133. 1
  4134. 1
  4135. 1
  4136. 1
  4137. 1
  4138. 1
  4139. 1
  4140. 1
  4141. 1
  4142. 1
  4143. 1
  4144. 1
  4145. 1
  4146. 1
  4147. 1
  4148. 1
  4149. 1
  4150. 1
  4151. 1
  4152. 1
  4153. 1
  4154. 1
  4155. 1
  4156. 1
  4157. 1
  4158. 1
  4159. 1
  4160. 1
  4161. 1
  4162. 1
  4163. 1
  4164. 1
  4165. 1
  4166. 1
  4167. 1
  4168. 1
  4169. 1
  4170. 1
  4171. 1
  4172. 1
  4173. 1
  4174. 1
  4175. 1
  4176. 1
  4177. 1
  4178. 1
  4179. 1
  4180. 1
  4181. 1
  4182. 1
  4183. 1
  4184. 1
  4185. 1
  4186. 1
  4187. 1
  4188. 1
  4189. 1
  4190. 1
  4191. 1
  4192. 1
  4193. 1
  4194. 1
  4195. 1
  4196. 1
  4197. 1
  4198. 1
  4199. And it's incredibly pathetic that none of you morons could actually post something to prove your nonsensical point. Do it, give out a few examples, try to talk to the point, moron. I'll gladly dedicate my time educating a bunch of unemployed idiots. Bring it on, if you have the balls to put your dignity where your mouths are. Give out some points on how that stupid plan of medicare for all could be paid for. Except for that one study that did not say "medicare for all will save us 2 trillions". It pointed out due to the new "sufficiency" created through drug distribution by the government, 2 trillions will be saved. Unfortunately, the report didn't mention on what will differs from the current situation. If medicare for all is applied, in order to achieve that fantasy saving of 2 trillions, all American citizens must comply to that unrealistic program, destroying the free market, insurance companies, and probably the entire federal budget credibility, because to achieve that 32 trillion dollars mark over 10 years, the tax rate would have to be doubled immediately and then still have to be raised one more time, want to know why, read the report. And again, inequality when the top 1% will again, pay for more free stuff for idiots. Here's a simple logic, if the poor can't do anything to save their own asses, do you expect them to do anything when all of their living is paid for by somebody else? There, fact check, that, you have all the time you need. Give out some replies, idiot. If you can't, I suggest that you stop believing in this delusional "Latinas" or whatever the term she uses to attract unemployed people, and get a job.
    1
  4200. 1
  4201. 1
  4202. 1
  4203. 1
  4204. 1
  4205. 1
  4206. 1
  4207. 1
  4208. 1
  4209. 1
  4210. 1
  4211. 1
  4212. 1
  4213. 1
  4214. 1
  4215. 1
  4216. 1
  4217. 1
  4218. 1
  4219. 1
  4220. 1
  4221. 1
  4222. 1
  4223. 1
  4224. 1
  4225. 1
  4226. 1
  4227. 1
  4228. 1
  4229. 1
  4230. 1
  4231. 1
  4232. 1
  4233. 1
  4234. 1
  4235. 1
  4236. 1
  4237. 1
  4238. 1
  4239. 1
  4240. 1
  4241. 1
  4242. 1
  4243. 1
  4244. 1
  4245. 1
  4246. 1
  4247. 1
  4248. 1
  4249. 1
  4250. 1
  4251. 1
  4252. 1
  4253. 1
  4254. 1
  4255. 1
  4256. 1
  4257. 1
  4258. 1
  4259. 1
  4260. 1
  4261. 1
  4262. 1
  4263. 1
  4264. 1
  4265. 1
  4266. 1
  4267. 1
  4268.  @OK-yy6qz  That's another lie, pal. All the alternative energy source, especially solar is now powerful enough to have the same efficiency of conversion as natural gas or coal. Sure, you can only collect 20% of energy coming from the sun, but you can only collect 20% of energy if you burn coal to heat up steam and then to turn the turbine. The point is that solar is far more expensive. However, it is infinite amount of energy, and if it needs be, people can easily produce solar panels for free. Just like how during Covid, certain companies donated vaccines to other countries without charge. Again, Tesla did far more to transform the world to EVs than Nissan ever can. Nissan is selling Nissan Leaf for a loss to green wash their brand while still profiting from internal combustion engine. Tesla offers a product with far, far superior range and charging time compared to Nissan, and the more EVs there are, the more important that becomes, because it reduces how many times you have to charge your car, increasing battery life cycle. Tesla EVs last about 3 times the lifespan of a Nissan Leaf. And no, Tesla does not use 3 times the number of batteries, that's not how it works. They just have superior technology. So sure, Nissan is making vehicles for "the middle class", but they're also wasting lithium, another finite energy. Go learn some math, pal. Tesla Model Y is the most popular car in Europe for a reason, it is the most superior car on the market, the Europeans have never fallen to the American Marketing Trap, so for them to abandon Mercedes and Volkswagen and choose Tesla, it says something. Go learn some math, show some respect.
    1
  4269. 1
  4270. 1
  4271. 1
  4272.  @awesomefacepalm  Really? Worst built yet highest safety score? And in case you hadn't noticed, pal. People in Europe just ditch their own manufacturer like Volkswagen and Mercedes and make Tesla Model Y the most popular car in the continent. And go learn some physics, pal. Only using renewables can create a stable energy grid if you have a place to store the excess energy. before distributing it elsewhere. And having a backup power plant just in case, maybe nuclear, maybe hydroelectric. As long as you have a overwhelming majority sustainable energy source, that's the dream. And of course it also satisfy your green fantasy, not that it matters. The key isn't to reduce pollution, go learn some math, the key is to move the world away from wasting their oil to make useless products. Oil is crucial to make certain products in the modern world, so how about you stop wasting it to move a car? The key lies in harnessing an infinite source of electricity instead of relying on a finite source. Energy from the sun is infinite, Silicon is infinite. Gas, Coal, Oil is finite That's the point of Electric Vehicles, that's how Musk is saving the world. And yes, range per kg of lithium is everything, pal, because lithium is also finite. So by having less range, you're definitely wasting more finite resources as well because your battery last less. Lithium is not a sustainable natural resources, not as important as oil but you have to use it wisely. After Musk is done changing the car industry, he'll go into making a better battery. If you're an engineer, do the simple math. Tesla has the best product on the market, the math is clear.
    1
  4273.  @awesomefacepalm  No, you're the uninformed and incompetent person here. To say that Tesla has the worst build is a purely subjective statement, there is no score on build quality. But we do know that all of their cars received decent safety ratings. And there's no such thing as a brand having the highest score, because one brand releases multiple models, and the score is on the specific model line, not the brand. Stop spreading lies, pal. According to Euro NCAP standard right now, Tesla Model Y and Model S has the highest score. So stop spreading lies. And another stupid statement of how solar energy can't be recycled. Hey dummy, energy is not an appliances, you can't recycle energy, you use energy to power devices, to light up the bulb. If you're talking about how recycling solar panel is tougher than recycling a coal burner than you're an idiot, because a solar panel recycling causes much less pollution than the coal that a coal powerplant burns. Wind is a stupid way of harnessing energy so I don't know what you're talking about. Solar is the way. But then again, the pollution you're talking is the current lack of processing technique, which at any means gives out less carbon dioxide than burning coal or burning gas, or burning oil. You're a degenerate because your opinions are full of lies, wrong according to reality, and portrays really poor intellectual capability. There's no hype here, mathematically this is future, you'll run out of coal, gas oil way before you run out of silicon and solar energy. So the sooner you do it, the better. You push in the "green" nonsense for no reason. It's not about green, dummy, it's about conserving the finite resources that we need by not using them wastefully. And that is oil, natural gas and lithium. Show some respect, you degenerate. The math is clear. Switching to sustainable energy not because of their greeness, but because of sustainability as in, we're not running out of those kind of energy. We can handle unprocessed landfill, we can not handle wasting oil. So again, show some respect, you degenerate. You're a degenerate not because you have a different opinion, it's because you're full of lies and you're intellectually inferior. Sad, isn't it.
    1
  4274. 1
  4275. 1
  4276. 1
  4277. 1
  4278. 1
  4279. 1
  4280. 1
  4281. 1
  4282. 1
  4283. 1
  4284. 1
  4285. 1
  4286. 1
  4287. 1
  4288. 1
  4289. 1
  4290. 1
  4291. 1
  4292. 1
  4293. 1
  4294. 1
  4295. 1
  4296. 1
  4297. 1
  4298. 1
  4299. 1
  4300. 1
  4301. 1
  4302. 1
  4303. 1
  4304. 1
  4305. 1
  4306. 1
  4307. 1
  4308. 1
  4309. 1
  4310. 1
  4311. 1
  4312. 1
  4313. 1
  4314. 1
  4315. 1
  4316. 1
  4317. 1
  4318. 1
  4319. 1
  4320. 1
  4321. 1
  4322. 1
  4323. 1
  4324. 1
  4325. 1
  4326. 1
  4327. 1
  4328. 1
  4329. 1
  4330.  @PrimitiveFuturologist_YTC     Wow, you're really dumb, aren't you. Keep rambling on about trivial stuff that you can't even see that they're just trivial stuff. Hey, idiot. Why the hell does it matter where they come from ? If you're stating that it's because those the owner of the land than you're dead wrong. The land is for whoever took it. Your entire research, is a useless thing used to trick little kids, stop it pal. It won't work. It doesn't matter where they come from, Africa, Asia, they could be from Atlantis and it would make no difference to the position they're in. But stating that they're from Africa, first of all, doesn't mean anything. Think about it. And you too be honest, after reading the latest and utterly useless reply, have shown that you're no better than just a 5 year old with an IPad. Copying anything you could see in an online research without knowing what it means. Using words maybe taken from a Shakespeare work pretending to be more than average. You're pathetic. If you can't type anything decent, kid. I advise you to go back to school. Just answer the question, is it more important to know where anthropoids come from, or is it more important to know where ancient civilizations was formed? Idiot. Oh, and yes, human thoughts made us special, maybe other creatures have some kind language, but none of those creatures are intellectually capable of doing the things we do. So applying relative comparison, yes we are special comparing to them. Get it, kid. It's called math. Go back to school and learn it. Like I said, here's an ancient Chinese saying for you. If you know say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how you know. You don't know anything, pal, try getting a homo erectus quote against that and then it'll be utterly clear. Pathetic!
    1
  4331. 1
  4332. 1
  4333. 1
  4334. 1
  4335. 1
  4336. 1
  4337. 1
  4338. 1
  4339. 1
  4340. 1
  4341. 1
  4342. 1
  4343. 1
  4344. 1
  4345. 1
  4346. 1
  4347. 1
  4348. 1
  4349. 1
  4350. 1
  4351. 1
  4352. 1
  4353. 1
  4354. ​ Van Yaeger  Nice try, pal, that's just pure stupidity. You're not slave to anything except yourselves. How do you explain lawyers making 10 times your salary if they're not paid what they're worth? How about get out of the bubble, what you're paid is what you actually worth, you want to know why? Because you can just quit and they'll find the next person immediately, you're not special, the value you add is not enough for people to pay you more. Study more, pal, how can you say that they don't pay what you worth? Who defines your worth? Yourself? Society values you at that much, that's what you worth. If you quit and nothing happens, then society decides that you worth nothing. Is it moral, yes, because it applies to everybody, you're free to start your own business, do it, but by doing so, you take the risks, you value anything using your own money to pay. Yang basic income is called stealing, you steal from people to give to other people, there's another term for that, slavery. And if your fake math is like 10% VAT, therefore 2 trillion dollars, use your brain, the country don't spend 20 trillion dollars on expenditures. Learn real math, pal. You're not oppressed, you're just worthless, it's harsh but it's the truth. You don't know real oppression and hardship, go to China, Vietnam, those places don't care of your value and the people has to work as hard as they can hoping to get noticed, not to be paid what they're worth, but to get noticed, why? Because even when they're noticed, there are countless just like them for the same position. Ask yourself, if you quit, can anybody take your place with no considerable damage, if the answer is yes then you're not undervalued, you're low value. Don't blame people if you're stupid and inadequate, enslave the few people who are creating most of the wealth to satisfy the useless? It's a worse picture than slavery. At least in slavery, the slave masters had the brains to utilize the slave's work.
    1
  4355. 1
  4356. 1
  4357. 1
  4358. 1
  4359. 1
  4360. 1
  4361. 1
  4362. 1
  4363. 1
  4364. 1
  4365. 1
  4366. 1
  4367. 1
  4368. 1
  4369. 1
  4370. 1
  4371. 1
  4372. 1
  4373. 1
  4374. 1
  4375. 1
  4376. 1
  4377. 1
  4378. 1
  4379. 1
  4380. 1
  4381. 1
  4382. 1
  4383. 1
  4384. 1
  4385. 1
  4386. 1
  4387. 1
  4388. 1
  4389. 1
  4390. 1
  4391.  @kristiansandsmark2048  One of the most delusional point I saw that you're buying into is this absurd notion of the "West" prosperity is due to this "free trade" and "maritime societies". I'm very sure that you have no idea what either of those words even mean. I'll give you a clue, that's not the reason why the current West is "prosperous". Here's a fundamental historical knowledge, kingdoms, countries have been engaging in economic activities, achieving technological breakthrough long before the existence of the current "Western society". The world history is long and it's not just the last 200 years, even though you might want to lie to yourself about it. The current prosperity of "the West", or to be more correct, the US Empire is because of how devastating WW2 is to all of the other competing power around the globe. The US Empire is leave in tact and rise as the victor, claiming most of the spoil despite hiding away for most of the war, that spoil of war, which includes the poaching of everying promising scientist and engineer around the world, that's what leads to the US prosperity. That and of course China and Russia strategical mistake of adopting "socialism" instead of their common tradition of common trading between businesses. Here's another fact that you probably never even heard of. Free market also existed long before the existence of "Western society". People have been trading with each other, under the form of merchant, craftsmen since the ancient time. And that system of people trading with each other has been unlocking human productivity since the ancient times, it's not a Western invention of any kind. So the West poaching of talents plus the standard application of free market plus China and Russia losing their way for about 50 years is what lead to the current prosperity being enjoyed by the West. Nothing exceptional here, you're just very lucky at that specific point in time after WW2. Now such "lucky" scenario is changing, rapidly. Both Russia and China have gone off the socialist regime and they have returned to the standard free market economy that should have been adopted from the first place. And they're catching up, making up time for the lost 50 years or so. China started earlier than Russia, under Deng Xiaoping in the 70s, and Russia started in the 2000s under Putin. They are catching up, they are ascending, while you're declining. Now there are many factors to your declining but the declining is obvious in your share of the global output. China and Russia share has been steadily rising, while your share is decreasing. The most obvious marker is the BRICS and G7 comparison. Now the BRICS+ is the world leading economy bloc, no doubt about it. Now you might be confused about why these countries are ascending, well it's quite simple, and this simplicity shall break your fantasy completely. It's the idea of economic convergence proposed by Adam Smith. It's that the productivity of a person, regardless of race or ethnicity, given the same amount of education and the same amount of resources shall be the same. Meaning that a person in China is just as smart as a person in US or UK, the same with a person in Russia. But the imbalances here where it will show why they're ascending and you're declining, is that the people in Russia has way more natural resources than you in US. And the people in China has way more education than the ones in the US. So get over yourself, buddy, this isn't the 1800s, this isn't the 1900s, this is the 21st century.
    1
  4392.  @kristiansandsmark2048  One of the most delusional point I saw that you're buying into is this absurd notion of the "West" prosperity is due to this "free trade" and "maritime societies". I'm very sure that you have no idea what either of those words even mean. I'll give you a clue, that's not the reason why the current West is "prosperous". Here's a fundamental historical knowledge, kingdoms, countries have been engaging in economic activities, achieving technological breakthrough long before the existence of the current "Western society". The world history is long and it's not just the last 200 years, even though you might want to lie to yourself about it. The current prosperity of "the West", or to be more correct, the US Empire is because of how devastating WW2 is to all of the other competing power around the globe. The US Empire is leave in tact and rise as the victor, claiming most of the spoil despite hiding away for most of the war, that spoil of war, which includes the poaching of everying promising scientist and engineer around the world, that's what led to the US prosperity. That and of course China and Russia strategical mistake of adopting "socialism" instead of their common tradition of common trading between businesses. Here's another fact that you probably never even heard of. Free market also existed long before the existence of "Western society". People have been trading with each other, under the form of merchant, craftsmen since the ancient time. And that system of people trading with each other has been unlocking human productivity since the ancient times, it's not a Western invention of any kind. So the West poaching of talents plus the standard application of free market plus China and Russia losing their way for about 50 years is what lead to the current prosperity being enjoyed by the West. Nothing exceptional here, you're just very lucky at that specific point in time after WW2. Now such "lucky" scenario is changing, rapidly. Both Russia and China have gone off the socialist regime and they have returned to the standard free market economy that should have been adopted from the first place. And they're catching up, making up time for the lost 50 years or so. China started earlier than Russia, under Deng Xiaoping in the 70s, and Russia started in the 2000s under Putin. They are catching up, they are ascending, while you're declining. Now there are many factors to your declining but the declining is obvious in your share of the global output. China and Russia share has been steadily rising, while your share is decreasing. The most obvious marker is the BRICS and G7 comparison. Now the BRICS+ is the world leading economy bloc, no doubt about it. Now you might be confused about why these countries are ascending, well it's quite simple. It's the idea of economic convergence proposed by Adam Smith. It's that the productivity of a person, regardless of race or ethnicity, given the same amount of education and the same amount of resources shall be the same. Meaning that a person in China is just as smart as a person in US or UK, the same with a person in Russia. But the imbalances here where it will show why they're ascending and you're declining, is that the people in Russia has way more natural resources than you in US. And the people in China has way more education than the ones in the US. So get over yourself, this isn't the 1800s, this isn't the 1900s, this is the 21st century.
    1
  4393.  @kristiansandsmark2048  One of the most inaccurate point I saw that you're buying into is this absurd notion of the "West" prosperity is due to this "free trade" and "maritime societies". I'm very sure that you have no idea what either of those words even mean. I'll give you a clue, that's not the reason why the current West is "prosperous". Here's a fundamental historical knowledge, kingdoms, countries have been engaging in economic activities, achieving technological breakthrough long before the existence of the current "Western society". The world history is long and it's not just the last 200 years, even though you might want to lie to yourself about it. The current prosperity of "the West", or to be more correct, the US Empire is because of how devastating WW2 is to all of the other competing power around the globe. The US Empire is leave in tact and rise as the victor, claiming most of the spoil despite hiding away for most of the war, that spoil of war, which includes the poaching of everying promising scientist and engineer around the world, that's what led to the US prosperity. That and of course China and Russia strategical mistake of adopting "socialism" instead of their common tradition of common trading between businesses. Here's another fact that you probably never even heard of. Free market also existed long before the existence of "Western society". People have been trading with each other, under the form of merchant, craftsmen since the ancient time. And that system of people trading with each other has been unlocking human productivity since the ancient times, it's not a Western invention of any kind. So the West poaching of talents plus the standard application of free market plus China and Russia losing their way for about 50 years is what lead to the current prosperity being enjoyed by the West. Nothing exceptional here, you're just very lucky at that specific point in time after WW2. Now such "lucky" scenario is changing, rapidly. Both Russia and China have gone off the socialist regime and they have returned to the standard free market economy that should have been adopted from the first place. And they're catching up, making up time for the lost 50 years or so. China started earlier than Russia, under Deng Xiaoping in the 70s, and Russia started in the 2000s under Putin. They are catching up, they are ascending, while you're declining. Now there are many factors to your declining but the declining is obvious in your share of the global output. China and Russia share has been steadily rising, while your share is decreasing. The most obvious marker is the BRICS and G7 comparison. Now the BRICS+ is the world leading economy bloc, no doubt about it. Now you might be confused about why these countries are ascending, well it's quite simple. It's the idea of economic convergence proposed by Adam Smith. It's that the productivity of a person, regardless of race or ethnicity, given the same amount of education and the same amount of resources shall be the same. Meaning that a person in China is just as smart as a person in US or UK, the same with a person in Russia. But the imbalances here where it will show why they're ascending and you're declining, is that the people in Russia has way more natural resources than you in US. And the people in China has way more education than the ones in the US. So get over yourself, this isn't the 1800s, this isn't the 1900s, this is the 21st century.
    1
  4394. 1
  4395. 1
  4396. 1
  4397. 1
  4398. 1
  4399. 1
  4400. 1
  4401.  @guacamole456  No, Japan doesn't build house with wood, pal. This isn't the 1700s, The only reason, if there's any why the Japanese would build their houses with woods is to maintain tradition, they build their traditional house with woods, because their traditional houses with traditional techniques uses wood. Meanwhile in the US, your houses have no tradition, you're just building it poorly, due to how the construction companies are not focused into one but spreaded out throughout the country. If the Earthquake is in 2008, then the hospitals and schools that collapsed there was built in the 1990s or early 2000s. That's 23 years ago or more. Catch up with the time, homie. China now and China 23 years ago are vastly different. It is you who needs to study math, physics, basic logical thinking ability before making any claims. And furthermore, that one corruption scandal at that one province at that one time doesn't represent the entire industry of a country of 1.4 billion people. This is where math comes into play by the way. Just because there are a school shooter in the US then you would conclude that the entire US is filled with child murderers? Come on, homie. Here's a simple example for you, their train station is more impressive than your airports, and I mean it. It's not even close. The Chinese currently holds the records for some of the most impressive engineering features in the world, for example, out of the world 100 highest bridges, 40 of them are in one single Chinese province, and they're all built over the mountainous area. Look, pal, this isn't even debatable, unless you're totally blind, the difference is too big. The Chinese infrastructure today makes the US look like it's 20 years behind, and it is, not just in bridges, but buildings, highways, rails, ports, EV facilities, even internet.
    1
  4402. 1
  4403. 1
  4404. 1
  4405. 1
  4406. 1
  4407. 1
  4408. 1
  4409. 1
  4410. 1
  4411. 1
  4412. 1
  4413. 1
  4414. 1
  4415. 1
  4416.  @wyrmofvt  Advertisers follow the user number, pal. You actually think advertisers will just leave Twitter altogether despite it's users number growing everyday? Keep it real, homie. Advertisers leaving are temporary, users staying is long term. That's the difference. Advertisers follow the users. I don't know why you think Twitter tried to get any of the employee back, Maybe for legal reasons of law suits but it's pretty clear Twitter do not need them in the first place, so get out of that bubble. The only employees being begged back is Ligma and Johnson, which if you don't get the joke, it's quite sad. Twitter, or Musk himself has more than enough capital and credit line to survive the next year, as long as the users are there, money flows in eventually, that's the point of social media company. So you need to learn better math. The revenue might be down for the last month, but it's still far beyond what is needed to keep the company afloat, now they've reuduced about 50% of operating cost. The checkmark debacles occured in 4 days, removed immediately, soon to be re-launched, advertisers left, but they will return. The key is the number of user grew. You get that? It was a disaster to you woke warriors because now you can't censure people for no reason anymore, but we don't care about you. Whatever make belief you're trying to sell, it's not real. The users are growing, therefore advertisers will be flooding back in, that's what advertisers do, they're prostitutes looking for the best way to promote their products, they follow the users. So unless there's a massive drop in number of users or a systematic crash, which is impossible because even the most basic startup company can handle that no problem, the company is doing fine. Facebook and Twitter are what you called stable monopoly. If you don't do anything too extreme , the companies run itself and generate steady cash. Now Elon is trying to impose some changes, but none of those are extreme changes, Dorsey the dummy imposed certain changes that were extreme and alienated nearly half of the US population and the world population by engaging in woke activism, Elon is changing that, and therefore bringing the company back on track. What part of "your feelings don't matter" don't you get? USERS NUMBER GREW, we outnumber you by a lot.
    1
  4417. 1
  4418. 1
  4419. 1
  4420.  @wyrmofvt  Kid, none of your criticism makes any sense, they deny reality, they deny facts. They demonstrated the lack of the most basic of knowledge. If you think Musk contribution is zero in the formation of his miraculous company, you're insane. Countless people had money before, nobody could have done what Musk did. Literally nobody. Peter Thiel had money, Bill Gates had money, a lot more people used to be richer than Elon failed to achieve anything close to what he did. So I wonder where this blind sense of hatred is coming from? You got swindled by Elon when he promoted doge coin? Tesla is the most profitable car company right now excluding past debt. SpaceX is the world leading company in reusable rocket launch, main contractor of NASA. PayPal or whatever it used to be, even if his code weren't that good, he still took part in accelerating its formation in the industry, demonstrated by the money PayPal had to pay him to kick him out. So if you're a troll, I suggest you stop. If you're a sane person, wake up. You can say that Mark Zuckerberg got lucky and he doesn't know what he's doing, you can say that about Bill Gates when he lost Microsoft monopoly in search engines. But to say that of Elon is just really dumb. He is by far the most competent human being in running businesses and improves them greatly in the world. Yeah, he may hype up his stocks and he has a bunch of cult followers, but doesn't mean his companies aren't the best. Tesla Model Y is the best selling car in Europe, the first time ever a non European car brand take that spot. Show some respect, you degenerate.
    1
  4421.  @wyrmofvt  You see what coming? 8$ verification fake account? Anybody can see that coming. That's why he's getting new features, where celebrities verification are different colors, official organization verifications are different colors. What's the problem then? Pal, he made one mistake, in retrospect, charging fee for verification is the correct move but it was too soon. But hey, like I said, relaunch next week. Nothing significant happened. The same thing with massive employee laid off, the people who quit are not missed at all, good bye. Elon even offered them money to quit, so again, nothing happened. Advertisers didn't pay attention to what Elon was doing, maybe some advertisers did paid attention but those are no where near all of them. 14 out of top 50, which means about 25%, next man up. The other 75% didn't do anything and new advertisers will keep coming as long as there are more users. Those are very sane prediction. It's a stable monopoly. You are no position to define which speech is smart and which speech isn't, you are frankly intellectually average. So get down from your high horse, pal. Users number grew, advertisers will go back in. If 14 out of top 50 advertisers went out, it means 36 out of those 50 advertisers stayed in, and other advertisers shall take the place of the other 14, because that's what companies do. As always, advertisers follow users, those other 36 advertisers obviously do not share the panic mentality the other 14 shows. So is there something wrong? Twitter exists just fine with the other 36 top advertisers and future advertisers coming in, so say goodbye to the ones who left and they'll be easily replaced. As long as Twitter grow, advertisers will be forced to come there. Go learn some math, pal. That's how social media works. Facebook might have lost 15% of it's advertising revenue just last year, but the company is still in deep cash, as long as they don't burn it in the Metaverse. Anyone can fail, correct. But the probability of a loser like you failing is infinitely more than a person like Elon with proven track records of creating miracles. Show some respect, you degenerate.
    1
  4422. 1
  4423.  @wyrmofvt  Again, there are too many stupidity and false belief in your writing to counter so I'm again going to pick out the most significant thing and shread it to pieces. Elon Musk is the chief desginer of SpaceX first ever launches, he hired the engineers that nobody thought were capable of doing anything, and he led them to build a miracle company. The guys that come to work for SpaceX were the guys that were not good enough for NASA. A few hundred guys at NASA were more experienced, were better than the SpaceX engineers, so what's the distinguishable factor? It's Elon Musk. He ordered the engineer to do a certain design that they themselves didn't know was possible or not. And he was right, time after time after time. That's the difference, a guy with the vision can hire a bunch of lackies to do the work. The chief engineer doesn't do the common labour work. That's what losers like you are for, assuming you can qualify for those roles, you probably don't. See the difference in class? Regarding to Twitter advertisers, they're still there, if 14 out of the top 50 advertisers left, 36 stayed, and the profit that comes from that 36 is more than enough to be profitable, as long as they cut the unnecessary spendings, for example, the woke employees and their free meals who are not necessary. So like I said, the sane advertisers outnumber the woke advertisers by a lot as well. Just like us sane users outnumber you lunatics by a gigantic margin. You wouldn't have done a better job, you're a troll, a sad person that hide yourself from reality because you refuse to recognize your own insignificance. Go study some math, small time troll.
    1
  4424. 1
  4425.  @wyrmofvt  Still too many false belief that I'm not going to address. The advertisers that left are Mars, Jeep, Merk, Verizon,... Which some are big, but the ones who stayed are a lot bigger. Nestle, , Unilever, Kraft Heinz, Comcast,.... Whatever fantasy you're having about all the important advertisers left, they're not real. So yeah, that foundation is wrong. You not realizing it makes you a troll, or you're just incredibly dumb and that's even worse. Look at the platform, pal. More users, less woke employees, less censorships. People equate blue with verified, and the fake accounts won't be getting a blue checkmark, they'll be getting a yellow or green one. 8 main color shade in the observable light spectrum, means you can color the same symbol 8 different kind, leading to 8 category of verification ranking. The fake accounts will be paying for dead last ranking and that's just free money for Twitter, because within the terms of service, it will be amended that if you purchase a checkmark and use it to impersonate people, you won't get a refund. Numbers speak for itself. The advertisers who temporarily pauses for about 2 whole weeks now are not even the biggest ones. So again, your argument fell apart because you're too lazy or to dumb to search up simple facts. We don't really care that your feelings are hurt, we do care that you're spreading lies, that's just uncool. Go learn some math, you degenerate, can't keep lying in real life like this. You are troll because you're denying reality, quoting lies, making up numbers to back up your made up belief, that's what makes you're a troll.
    1
  4426. 1
  4427. 1
  4428. 1
  4429. 1
  4430. 1
  4431. 1
  4432. 1
  4433. 1
  4434. 1
  4435. 1
  4436. 1
  4437. 1
  4438. 1
  4439. 1
  4440. 1
  4441. First of all, the CNN guy didn't read the report, or he's playing dumb to brushing up Cortez's ass. Anybody who actually read and still claim to be "supporting" of it is plain lying, and it's incredibly pathetic that none of you morons could actually post something to prove your nonsensical point. Do it, give out a few examples, try to talk to the point, moron. I'll gladly dedicate my time educating a bunch of unemployed idiots. Bring it on, if you have the balls to put your dignity where your mouths are. Give out some points on how that stupid plan of medicare for all could be paid for. Except for that one study that did not say "medicare for all will save us 2 trillions". It pointed out due to the new "sufficiency" created through drug distribution by the government, 2 trillions will be saved. Unfortunately, the report didn't mention on what will differs from the current situation. If medicare for all is applied, in order to achieve that fantasy saving of 2 trillions, all American citizens must comply to that unrealistic program, destroying the free market, insurance companies, and probably the entire federal budget credibility, because to achieve that 32 trillion dollars mark over 10 years, the tax rate would have to be doubled immediately and then still have to be raised one more time, want to know why, read the report. And again, inequality when the top 1% will again, pay for more free stuff for idiots. Here's a simple logic, if the poor can't do anything to save their own asses, do you expect them to do anything when all of their living is paid for by somebody else? There, fact check, that, you have all the time you need. Give out some replies, idiot. If you can't, I suggest that you stop believing in this delusional "Latinas" or whatever the term she uses to attract unemployed people, and get a job.
    1
  4442. 1
  4443. 1
  4444. 1
  4445. 1
  4446. 1
  4447. 1
  4448. 1
  4449. 1
  4450. 1
  4451. 1
  4452. 1
  4453. 1
  4454. 1
  4455. 1
  4456. 1
  4457. 1
  4458. 1
  4459. 1
  4460. 1
  4461. 1
  4462. 1
  4463. 1
  4464. 1
  4465. 1
  4466. 1
  4467. 1
  4468. 1
  4469. 1
  4470. 1
  4471. 1
  4472. 1
  4473. 1
  4474. 1
  4475. 1
  4476. 1
  4477. 1
  4478. 1
  4479. 1
  4480. 1
  4481. 1
  4482. 1
  4483. 1
  4484. 1
  4485. 1
  4486. 1
  4487. 1
  4488. 1
  4489. 1
  4490. 1
  4491. 1
  4492. 1
  4493. 1
  4494. 1
  4495. 1
  4496. 1
  4497. 1
  4498. 1
  4499. 1
  4500. 1
  4501. 1
  4502. 1
  4503. 1
  4504. 1
  4505. 1
  4506. 1
  4507. 1
  4508. 1
  4509. 1
  4510. 1
  4511. 1
  4512. 1
  4513. 1
  4514. 1
  4515. 1
  4516. 1
  4517. 1
  4518. 1
  4519. 1
  4520. 1
  4521. 1
  4522. 1
  4523. 1
  4524. Mike Turner Again, get a real job, maybe something that doesn't make statistical claim from grammar, you're just a total buffoon typing that. And secondly, learn how to argue, typing words in the correct order doesn't make you a smarter person, btw "efficient people", it's called sarcasm, moron. Thirdly, "data scientists", you might want to look up more numbers even though you clearly do not have any idea what those numbers mean, this is not the first "teachers protest", there has been more in the last 9 years, and guess what? Every single time, it's the same, they whine, they whine, they quit, because they don't need them for minimal survival. If they can actually produce "efficient" people, it's due to human instinct that we would have given them the budget, pal, search more statistics, some of them are fully funded and guess what, the products stayed almost the same. Class supplies? Have you ever seen Asian schools, they have class 2 times your size and teachers teach at multiple schools and like win way more intellectual awards for high school students. Don't blame the fund. Finally, learn how to think before typing, typing words in the correct order doesn't make you smarter, it's make you more pathetic paying attention to insignificant details, and who knows, maybe I don't double check my reply because you, a "data scientist", do not worth my time, heck, you should be glad that I even reply to you. With your nonsensical claim and Wikipedia paraphrasing others would have just delete your reply, it's easy.
    1
  4525. 1
  4526. 1
  4527. 1
  4528. 1
  4529. 1
  4530. 1
  4531. 1
  4532. 1
  4533. 1
  4534. 1
  4535. 1
  4536. 1
  4537. 1
  4538. 1
  4539. 1
  4540. 1
  4541. 1
  4542. 1
  4543. 1
  4544. 1
  4545. 1
  4546. 1
  4547. 1
  4548. 1
  4549. 1
  4550. 1
  4551. 1
  4552. 1
  4553. 1
  4554. 1
  4555. 1
  4556. 1
  4557. 1
  4558. 1
  4559. 1
  4560. 1
  4561.  @lazarus2691     The price of electricity is still cheap due to the lack of high demands, pal. If everybody switches to EVs, the price won't be low. 40% of the energy being consume in this country comes from gasoline. If you eliminate gasoline, you'll need the extra 40% in some sort of energy. Natural gas took account for only 31%, so it has to increase more than 100% of natural gas production, which is not feasible, because by the graph, seemingly it will take 20-30 more years to increase production by that much. And not to mention if you don't do gasoline, a bunch of industrial process shall be eliminated. Petroleum refining is necessary not just to make gasoline, it's also plastics, polymer, the entire industrial process rely on petroleum. If you cut out the profit from gasoline because you want EVs, you will disrupt the chain and many, many products nowadays shall have an increase in price. And about the trend thing, apparently you have no idea how car manufacturing works. And your stock price, it's a piece of paper, man, if you cash it in then it's more like stealing than actually making profit. The stock doesn't make company profitable, high stock price means more people are thinking that it worth something. It doesn't actually worth much, because it has nothing to back up. Anything gain through short time can disappear through short time. Don't be proud of being a con man. The adoption curve has always been inverted, you can see this clearly through the staggering amount of failed scientific breakthroughs. About car production. Market size won't increase, but production has to, otherwise you're standing still, and that's loosing money and time. The equivalent value from the chain of manufacturing is in the products it created. If you stop manufacturing due to "thinking that there's no demand", the chain of production will keep wasting money. Because the cost of maintaining it keeps going up, yet it doesn't create anymore value. It's not as simple as "no more demand than no supply, pal". If you don't supply, you waste the investment. You need to create demands otherwise you will sink. The money Tesla put into the factories haven't been repaid. If they stop manufacturing, means no more demand, and no more backup values, such as cars already made, then the company's only asset is a chain of production that doesn't produce anything. Your math on solar panel. That's false math. You're calculating the "current average". Right now they only put solar panels in place that has the most benefits, so the benefits is at maximum. Once you expand, the majority of places shall not reach that maximum, eventually it will hit a curve where the cost of putting more solar panel is more than the electricity can cover. That's why there isn't mass solar panel farms. Sunlight density is an issue, man. Go put a solar panel in London, you'll see. Your math is false because you ignored such factors. The cost of solar continue to drop at where it is feasible. Places that it's not feasible, the cost will rise. Do more research, pal. And your bad math also ignored how multiple buildings in this country are well, "buildings". Dozens of household under one roof, but that roof, even by your fake math best calculation, can only cover one household. Do more research, pal.
    1
  4562. 1
  4563.  @RZakelis  My statement is based on facts. Your statement is based on fantasy. Because you live in a fantasy that the GDP is measured via the dollars, and military capability is measured on also spending on the dollars and you think the only tech in the world is the one coded within software. That's an adorable fantasy worthy of 3 year old. That's just sad. The economy is not measured via the dollars, darling. Go learn real economy. America is still among the top economy, but it's nowhere near the best, because it's totally not independent and can't manufacture necessities. America military is also nowhere near the best, actually you're one of the worst, because you spend 10 times all the countries combined to get the similar, sometimes worse results. Military capability is not measured by airplanes as well, doesn't matter how expensive that plane is. Your countries spent it last 30 years doing nothing significant except bullying poor countries. Technologically, the core technology of semiconductors and physical manufacturing, your country are way behind. The tech products in Silicon Valley aren't special, they are the dominating one right now not because they're special, it's because they're services companies with the most users. Such users can easily leave if push comes to shove. You can leave Google or Facebook in preference of Weibo or TikTok, all Chinese. But you can't leave the use of oil in Saudi Arabia or manufacturing of goods in China. Go learn some math, hombre. You live in a Hollywood movie, and it's bad movie.
    1
  4564. 1
  4565. 1
  4566. 1
  4567. 1
  4568. 1
  4569. 1
  4570. 1
  4571. 1
  4572. 1
  4573. 1
  4574. 1
  4575. 1
  4576. 1
  4577. 1
  4578. 1
  4579. 1
  4580. 1
  4581. 1
  4582. 1
  4583. 1
  4584. 1
  4585. Joker 23 Okay, now the Joker is using Murphy's law, kid, seriously, go back to school. By your assumption that because something can happen, it happens, then we're all puppets run by giants. Like I said, go back to school, bigger people than him can't even run this country. Gates, Buffet, the Kochs, Soros, all their attempt to make left wing politics a majority can't even win the 2016 election. Like I said, maybe Murdoch want to own the people, but as long as he's doing it using facts, reasons and the truth, we the people accept that. We didn't accept propaganda nonsense back with the Tea Party, like how we don't accept radical mob ruling right now with CNN, MSNBC, CBS. Ask yourself the question why those people like Murdoch needs this kind of media, why? Because they know that they do not have control over the public, they're trying to, but we all know that it's not gonna work. Murdoch, Soros, Gates, Buffet, Bloomberg, Kochs, despite all their efforts, can not control the country. And finally, idiot, about proving Fox News is telling the truth, that's not how it works. We assume by default that they're telling the truth, presumption of innocent, that they're doing their jobs, their moral obligations as news organizations is to do factually accurate reporting, you claim otherwise, you need to prove that they're lying. We do it all the time with CNN, MSNBC, CBS. So like I said, if you can't point out anything, accept that your belief is false. An old Chinese saying for you, "if you know, say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how you know". I know that you don't know a thing and I just said it.
    1
  4586. 1
  4587. 1
  4588. 1
  4589. 1
  4590. 1
  4591. 1
  4592. 1
  4593. 1
  4594. 1
  4595. 1
  4596. 1
  4597. 1
  4598. 1
  4599. 1
  4600. 1
  4601. 1
  4602. 1
  4603. 1
  4604. 1
  4605. 1
  4606. 1
  4607. 1
  4608. 1
  4609. 1
  4610. 1
  4611. 1
  4612. 1
  4613. 1
  4614. 1
  4615. 1
  4616. 1
  4617. 1
  4618. 1
  4619. 1
  4620. 1
  4621. 1
  4622. 1
  4623. 1
  4624. 1
  4625. 1
  4626. 1
  4627. 1
  4628.     Unmasking without probable cause. Regarding Michael Flynn, even FBI officials admitted that he is clean. So wake up, dummy. Like I pointed out in your pathetic flaws, the only reason you spy on Page is because he was a part of Trump campaign. Any spying on associates for the reason that they're associates means spying on the thing they're associated with. Government spying on terrorist contacts means spying on the terrorist. So get back to logic, kid. Trump's campaign got contact by the Russian, and the Mueller report proved that there's no collusion. Your assumption of what collusion is is not how the law works, kid. Where's the quote of admission of guilt? Seemingly it is so difficult of you idiots to get quotes admitting the guilt? It's always your assumption of what they meant. That's not how it works. Your example of catching a Predator, in this case, you can't prove and there is no probable reason to believe that it is a conspiracy. Trump campaign got contacted by the Russians, they didn't come to the Russian, and they didn't do anything with the Russian. Pal, that was the same with Edward Snowden, Snowden sharing information to reporters, that is a crime. But reporters receiving information from Snowden, that is not a crime, because the reported didn't collude with Snowden to steal the information. How about studying some real law? Innocent men do fire incompetent people who tried to frame them, like how Yates just admitted that Comey dirty cop did? You do block testimony of rouge agents who has malicious intent of harming you, and you do not comply with trial that denies due process by not allowing you to call your witnesses. In the case Maryland vs King, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg all ruled that collection of DNA of a free man for no reason than to hopefully solve a crime is a violation of the 4th amendment, unreasonable searches and seizures. If Trump is charged with a crime, he can be compared to the DNA samples, but comparing random DNA samples for no reason except an allegations, that is called intrusion. And of course, that case with the rape victim, it is not DNA sample of his semen, like how it was Bill Clinton DNA on Monica Lewinsky's dress? It was a DNA sample of something that you don't even know, the victim itself can't describe what the situation was like and what part of Trump's DNA was on her dress. If the DNA is not inside you, under the form of sperm which is the case when comparing real rape victims with reasonably suspected offenders, then the DNA is highly invalid, due to multiple reason why it could be there. And the exposing of Trump DNA can be used against him to frame him in other cases. If you don't have actual cases with proof to request for that DNA samples, you just can't. Because Trump is protected, like you and me, he is protected by the law. So wake up, kid. Your arguments aren't arguments, they're bad lies that can be ripped apart easily.
    1
  4629. 1
  4630. 1
  4631. 1
  4632. 1
  4633. 1
  4634. 1
  4635. 1
  4636. 1
  4637. 1
  4638. 1
  4639. 1
  4640. 1
  4641. 1
  4642. 1
  4643. 1
  4644. 1
  4645. 1
  4646. 1
  4647. 1
  4648. 1
  4649. 1
  4650. 1
  4651. 1
  4652. 1
  4653. 1
  4654. 1
  4655. 1
  4656. 1
  4657. 1
  4658. 1
  4659. 1
  4660. 1
  4661. 1
  4662. 1
  4663. 1
  4664. 1
  4665. 1
  4666. 1
  4667. 1
  4668. 1
  4669. 1
  4670. 1
  4671. 1
  4672. 1
  4673. 1
  4674. 1
  4675. 1
  4676. 1
  4677. 1
  4678. 1
  4679. 1
  4680. 1
  4681. 1
  4682. 1
  4683. 1
  4684. 1
  4685. 1
  4686. 1
  4687. 1
  4688. 1
  4689. 1
  4690. 1
  4691. 1
  4692. 1
  4693. 1
  4694. 1
  4695. 1
  4696. 1
  4697. 1
  4698. 1
  4699. 1
  4700. 1
  4701. 1
  4702. 1
  4703. 1
  4704. 1
  4705. 1
  4706.  @L.Fenton  What they did with trans healthcare is too low of a standard If you think all scientific fields are equally valid, you're adorable. They're not. Go study real science, real scientists like me, who study physics, mechanics, chemistry and even doctors despise those make belief field. Go study real science, little kid. If your version of real science is trans healthcare, you're living a sad life. Pretty much. People who spent their lives studying trans people might have gotten a better result studying armadillos. Uses the same method, look, guess and run make belief results, you can never be wrong in those kind of field because the margin of error and acceptable results is infinitely large. Trans people are as valid as the people worshipping a leprechaun somewhere in Northern Europe. Can you study them? Yes, is it a respectable scientific field? Absolutely not. Look, kid, we accepted those field of study as a field not because of their credibility, but because they're useless fields that can gouge out the money of losers like you pursuing them. You had great fun wasting a lot of your own money, but this is the limit. Are you going to go the Nobel Prize committee and say, hey, trans healthcare is just as respectable as the other 113 real medical achievement you have crowned in the past? Are you for real? Go study real science, kid. Go to any university and ask them to put trans healthcare on their cover page as one of their "equal" major and they will laugh you out of the office. Good one. In case you hadn't noticed, about 60% of the global population doesn't recognize such a field as a real scientific field. So oops, the American delusion is shattered. Real medical science discovered the image of the chromosomes and then modeled the human DNA. What did trans healthcare did except ruin the image of the rainbow?
    1
  4707. 1
  4708. 1
  4709. 1
  4710. 1
  4711. 1
  4712. 1
  4713. 1
  4714. 1
  4715. 1
  4716. 1
  4717. 1
  4718. 1
  4719. 1
  4720. 1
  4721. 1
  4722. 1
  4723. 1
  4724. 1
  4725. 1
  4726. 1
  4727. 1
  4728. 1
  4729. 1
  4730. 1
  4731. 1
  4732. 1
  4733. 1
  4734. 1
  4735. 1
  4736. 1
  4737. 1
  4738. 1
  4739. 1
  4740. 1
  4741. 1
  4742. 1
  4743. 1
  4744. 1
  4745. 1
  4746. 1
  4747. 1
  4748. 1
  4749. 1
  4750. 1
  4751. 1
  4752. 1
  4753. 1
  4754. 1
  4755. 1
  4756. 1
  4757. 1
  4758. 1
  4759. 1
  4760. 1
  4761. 1
  4762. 1
  4763. 1
  4764. 1
  4765. 1
  4766. 1
  4767. 1
  4768. 1
  4769. 1
  4770. 1
  4771. 1
  4772. 1
  4773. 1
  4774. 1
  4775. 1
  4776. 1
  4777. 1
  4778. 1
  4779. 1
  4780. 1
  4781. 1
  4782. 1
  4783. 1
  4784. 1
  4785. 1
  4786. 1
  4787. 1
  4788. 1
  4789. 1
  4790. 1
  4791. 1
  4792. 1
  4793. 1
  4794. 1
  4795. 1
  4796. 1
  4797. 1
  4798. 1
  4799. 1
  4800. 1
  4801. 1
  4802. 1
  4803. 1
  4804. 1
  4805. 1
  4806. 1
  4807. 1
  4808. 1
  4809. 1
  4810. 1
  4811. 1
  4812. 1
  4813. 1
  4814. 1
  4815. 1
  4816. 1
  4817. 1
  4818. 1
  4819. 1
  4820. 1
  4821. 1
  4822. 1
  4823. 1
  4824. 1
  4825. 1
  4826. 1
  4827. 1
  4828. 1
  4829. 1
  4830. 1
  4831. 1
  4832. 1
  4833. 1
  4834. 1
  4835. 1
  4836. 1
  4837. 1
  4838. 1
  4839. 1
  4840. 1
  4841. 1
  4842. 1
  4843. 1
  4844. @mo8720 You make a few mistakes in that very short reply that only a very ignorant individual can make, but that's not surprising. 1. Just because you're nuclear super power doesn't mean you can't be provoked, especially by another nuclear superpower. Example: US being provoked by Cuba in combination with the Soviet in 1963, or just right before that when the Soviet was provoked by the US in combination with Turkey. 2. The most active and heinois form of fascism we have is of course Nazism, and the only place in the world that harbors active Nazi is Ukraine. You have the report from the New York Times about Ukrainian Nazis, you have the Nazis emblem on Ukraine military elite forces, you have a known Nazi being codified into Ukrainian Law as their national hero, you have their President literally applauding an actual WW2 Nazi, a Nazi which Poland is asking to be extradited, of course Canada parliament joined in so maybe the second most Nazified place on Earth is Canada. 3. The only Imperialist country with an massive obession of invading and dominating people and territories whom it literally has no relation to or jurisdiction upon is the United States. In the last 20 years, the examples are invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, regime change operation in Lybia, regime change operation in Syria, current supplying of arms in a genocide in Gaza. Of course this is accompanied by 800 military bases around the world, all of them on foreign soil , including a few illegal military bases on the soil of countries that directly declare that the bases are illegal such as Iraq and Syria. I know you Americans are dumb but this getting sad.
    1
  4845. 1
  4846.  @OldLizard  Let me explain this one more time to you. Doesn't matter what your language is if your intelligence is sub-par. Get over yourself. 1. Personal experience that you have doesn't reflect at all the big picture of the region. There's a word for it, it's called ignorance, it doesn't matter what you have experienced, because you haven't experienecd what other people have experienced. We have proof, we have photos, we have witnesses. Are we clear on that? Just because you haven't been killed doesn't mean that no one is ever killed on Earth. Shocking logic, isn't it? Like I said, January 1st every year in Ukraine is Bandera day, codified into law. 2. Gaza is not a separate country, it is a part of Palesinian territory, recognized by about 160 countries aka 90% of global poulation, out of 193 UN members through their voting of Gaza ceasefire where they identify it as a part of Palestine. The people aren't Gazans, they're Palestinians. And because they're Palestinians, the people there are entitled to sovereignty and self determination over the entirety of Palestinian territory. Which like I said, is recently recognized by 30% of global population as under illegal occupation. You're not allowed to invade, occupy, steal other people land and then giving a small piece back claiming it's alright as if you're not committing crimes against humanity. Again, shocking logic, isn't it? There's no propaganda here, pal. These are all verified facts. Flat earthers like you might not know this but there is a thing called the UN, where countries send their delegates to vote on International Issues. And how they vote express the position of the country. Is this going too fast for you?
    1
  4847. 1
  4848. 1
  4849.  @a5cent  That's like saying what Osama Bin Laden does has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. America is the undisputed leader of NATO, or in fact NATO is a front for American foreign policy, or one among many front. Please, go study some math. You're saying the action of a single crime boss, most significant crime boss doesn't reflect the nature of the criminal organization. Where did you go to school? 1. The issua of Serbia, or Yugoslavia, you're totally wrong, it is not widely supported by many countries, US and it's lackey is not many countries. If you actually look at a map, literally over 70% of global population still today doesn't recognize Kosovo as a country, meaning that the reason itself for that NATO bombing is not supported widely. You need to go study the definition of "widely", that bombing is wildy unpopular. 2. Afghanistan, like I said, UN never approved that, the attack of 9/11 is not comitted by Afghanistan government, terrorist organization ain't part of government. And UN security council did not approve. Do you understand this basic logic? 3. You're still mistaken about Iraq, the US is still in Iraq today, though not as much they used to be, but they're there illegally of course because the Iraq government has asked them to leave and they don't leave. Literally your knowledge of these matters is severely flawed. Please go brush up on them. A fundamental fact is that all of US military excapade of crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Ukraine. None of them is widely supported on global scale, they are widely opposed on the global scale. Are we clear on basic math?
    1
  4850. 1
  4851. 1
  4852. 1
  4853. 1
  4854. 1
  4855. 1
  4856. 1
  4857. 1
  4858. 1
  4859. 1
  4860. 1
  4861. 1
  4862. 1
  4863. 1
  4864. 1
  4865. 1
  4866. 1
  4867. 1
  4868. 1
  4869. 1
  4870. 1
  4871. 1
  4872. 1
  4873. 1
  4874. 1
  4875. 1
  4876. 1
  4877. 1
  4878. 1
  4879. 1
  4880. 1
  4881. 1
  4882. 1
  4883. 1
  4884. 1
  4885. 1
  4886. 1
  4887. 1
  4888. 1
  4889. 1
  4890. 1
  4891. 1
  4892. 1
  4893. 1
  4894. 1
  4895. 1
  4896. 1
  4897. 1
  4898. 1
  4899. 1
  4900. 1
  4901. 1
  4902. 1
  4903. 1
  4904. 1
  4905. 1
  4906. 1
  4907. 1
  4908. 1
  4909. 1
  4910. 1
  4911. 1
  4912. 1
  4913. 1
  4914. 1
  4915. 1
  4916. 1
  4917. 1
  4918. 1
  4919. 1
  4920. 1
  4921. 1
  4922. 1
  4923. 1
  4924. 1
  4925. 1
  4926. 1
  4927. 1
  4928. 1
  4929. 1
  4930. 1
  4931. 1
  4932. 1
  4933. 1
  4934. 1
  4935. 1
  4936. 1
  4937. 1
  4938. 1
  4939. 1
  4940. 1
  4941. 1
  4942. 1
  4943. 1
  4944. 1
  4945. 1
  4946. 1
  4947. 1
  4948. 1
  4949. 1
  4950. 1
  4951. 1
  4952. 1
  4953. 1
  4954. 1
  4955. 1
  4956. 1
  4957. 1
  4958. 1
  4959. 1
  4960. 1
  4961. 1
  4962. 1
  4963. 1
  4964. 1
  4965. 1
  4966. 1
  4967. 1
  4968. 1
  4969. 1
  4970. 1
  4971. 1
  4972. 1
  4973. 1
  4974. 1
  4975. 1
  4976. 1
  4977. 1
  4978. 1
  4979. 1
  4980. 1
  4981. 1
  4982. 1
  4983. 1
  4984. 1
  4985. 1
  4986. 1
  4987. 1
  4988. 1
  4989. 1
  4990. 1
  4991. 1
  4992. 1
  4993. 1
  4994. 1
  4995. 1
  4996. 1
  4997. 1
  4998. 1
  4999. 1
  5000. 1
  5001. 1
  5002. 1
  5003. 1
  5004. 1
  5005. 1
  5006. 1
  5007. 1
  5008. 1
  5009. 1
  5010. 1
  5011. 1
  5012. 1
  5013. 1
  5014. 1
  5015. 1
  5016. 1
  5017. 1
  5018. 1
  5019. 1
  5020. 1
  5021. 1
  5022. 1
  5023. 1
  5024. 1
  5025. 1
  5026. 1
  5027. 1
  5028. 1
  5029. 1
  5030. 1
  5031. 1
  5032. 1
  5033. 1
  5034. 1
  5035. 1
  5036. 1
  5037. 1
  5038. 1
  5039. 1
  5040. 1
  5041. 1
  5042. 1
  5043. 1
  5044. 1
  5045. 1
  5046. 1
  5047. 1
  5048. 1
  5049. 1
  5050. 1
  5051. 1
  5052. 1
  5053. 1
  5054. 1
  5055. 1
  5056. 1
  5057. 1
  5058. 1
  5059. 1
  5060. 1
  5061. 1
  5062. Exactly, buddy. The West lost the edge because they made a stupid mistake, and now they're paying the price for it. The West sold their soul to corruption practices without knowing it and this is the price. So again, it's your fault, or your parent's fault, obviously. And no, not all products need replacement much earlier, the products that were produced earlier are of the exact quality, sometimes much better. The Japanese cars are being made now without a doubt far surpass what the Americans car manufacturer were able to deliver. You need so study some math. And new products that never even existed in the past are now here, they're more sophisticated, sometimes they're harder to maintain in perpetuity, it's called second laws of thermodynamics, study, hombre. And yes, the small of elite Indians running those companies are not representative of the entire Indian society now, but it is a trend, an inevitable trend that those people are moving upwards, they have mastered enough science and technology that their catching up and being competitive is unstoppable. India can't become number 1 quickly, but they'll be a very strong number 3, possibly number 2, depending on how dumb the US society gets. And that's more than enough. Now you can deal with that, homie, or you can continue to live in an echo chamber by pretending that nothing is wrong with your society. Either way, it's not going to change much because it's probably too late, the consequences made by dumb decisions in the 1990s are here, and there's no magical solution to fix it. Save yourself.
    1
  5063. 1
  5064. 1
  5065. 1
  5066. 1
  5067. 1
  5068. 1
  5069.  @cliffmays442  Yeah, it's you wishing they would wake up, using your delusional ideas to oppress other people's idea. You understand the civil war in the wrongest way possible. It's not between people who want to enslave other people and what not. The freedom of slavery shall cripple the South economy, boosting prices on every kind of product, mainly agriculture, and the lives of the people there shall be affected despite the poor don't own any slaves. The poor do buy food that are grown by slaves. It's called math, study them. The pure negligence of Lincoln in the process of removing slavery is one of the holes people never mentioned. He tried to demolish slavery in an instant, no transition time, no consequences. Because people who own slaves just play by the rules, the rules which allow for slavery were there, so they used slavery as an asset for business, eliminating slavery means breaking the rules that had already been there, and it shall affect people massively, both the poor and the rich. Don't try to lie. The people who never wore crutches won't know the importance of crutches. The south has slavery, the North doesn't depends on it so they don't know how important it is. Learn some math. And it's your assumption that this is pro-rich economy. Pal, the rich is the embodiment of working class become successful, I'm very sorry that the people who know they can work and get up the ladder doesn't share your contempt for hard-work and determination. The voting process is there to keep radical divisive ideas from dominating the country.
    1
  5070. 1
  5071. 1
  5072. 1
  5073. 1
  5074. 1
  5075. 1
  5076. 1
  5077. 1
  5078. 1
  5079. 1
  5080. 1
  5081. 1
  5082. 1
  5083. 1
  5084. 1
  5085. 1
  5086. 1
  5087. 1
  5088. 1
  5089. 1
  5090. 1
  5091. 1
  5092. 1
  5093. 1
  5094. 1
  5095. 1
  5096. 1
  5097. 1
  5098. 1
  5099. 1
  5100. 1
  5101. 1
  5102. 1
  5103. 1
  5104. 1
  5105. 1
  5106. 1
  5107. 1
  5108. 1
  5109. 1
  5110. 1
  5111. 1
  5112. 1
  5113. 1
  5114. 1
  5115. 1
  5116. 1
  5117. 1
  5118. 1
  5119. 1
  5120. 1
  5121. 1
  5122. 1
  5123. 1
  5124. 1
  5125. 1
  5126. 1
  5127. 1
  5128. 1
  5129. 1
  5130. 1
  5131. 1
  5132. 1
  5133. 1
  5134. 1
  5135. 1
  5136. 1
  5137.  @MP4_mafia  It does make them less human. When you committed a crime attacking people, you surrendered your right to live, because you have violated other people's right to live. You're no longer an innocent person. I don't know what your collective right is but we countless individuals do not accept such insanity. The society is collective of individuals, so if your "collective rights" conflict with "individual rights", well, then your collective rights do not exist at all. Because first and foremost, the individual right of everybody has to be respected. Why don't you take that meaningless theory to a judge and get thrown out test it's credibility? More guns do not reduce violence, more lives and more criminals will increase violence, that's statistics, bigger pool of people, more crime. by the nonsensical argument you're making. We should just kill all criminal, that will ensure "no criminal", it's a meaningless argument. The gun is a right, the right to own a weapon to defend yourself from other people and from the government. If we want to surrender our rights, we will do it ourselves, like we did with the automatic rifles. But it's not up to you to decide at all, kid. And there's no such thing as an "assault rifle", AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that design the gun. And it shoot one bullet at a time, just like a handgun. It just do it more efficiently because a handgun is easily disarmed, so not an ideal self defense weapon. Get down from your high horse of hypocrisy. Those criminals got shot because they were attacking somebody. Unfortunate, but life is not perfect. Society does not protect attackers from getting killed if the people they attack act in self defense.
    1
  5138. 1
  5139. 1
  5140. 1
  5141. 1
  5142. 1
  5143. 1
  5144. 1
  5145. 1
  5146. 1
  5147. 1
  5148. 1
  5149. 1
  5150. 1
  5151. 1
  5152. 1
  5153. 1
  5154. 1
  5155. 1
  5156. 1
  5157. 1
  5158. 1
  5159. 1
  5160. 1
  5161. 1
  5162. 1
  5163. 1
  5164. 1
  5165. 1
  5166. 1
  5167. 1
  5168. 1
  5169. 1
  5170. 1
  5171. 1
  5172. 1
  5173. 1
  5174. 1
  5175. 1
  5176. 1
  5177. 1
  5178. 1
  5179. 1
  5180. 1
  5181. 1
  5182. 1
  5183. 1
  5184. 1
  5185. 1
  5186. 1
  5187. 1
  5188. 1
  5189. 1
  5190. 1
  5191. 1
  5192. 1
  5193. 1
  5194. 1
  5195. 1
  5196. 1
  5197. 1
  5198. 1
  5199. 1
  5200. 1
  5201. 1
  5202. 1
  5203. 1
  5204. 1
  5205. 1
  5206. 1
  5207. 1
  5208. 1
  5209. 1
  5210. 1
  5211. 1
  5212. 1
  5213. 1
  5214. 1
  5215. 1
  5216. 1
  5217. 1
  5218. 1
  5219. 1
  5220. 1
  5221. 1
  5222. 1
  5223. 1
  5224. 1
  5225. 1
  5226. 1
  5227. 1
  5228. First of all, the CNN guy didn't read the report, or he's playing dumb to brushing up Cortez's ass. Anybody who actually read and still claim to be "supporting" of it is plain lying, and it's incredibly pathetic that none of you morons could actually post something to prove your nonsensical point. Do it, give out a few examples, try to talk to the point, moron. I'll gladly dedicate my time educating a bunch of unemployed idiots. Bring it on, if you have the balls to put your dignity where your mouths are. Give out some points on how that stupid plan of medicare for all could be paid for. Except for that one study that did not say "medicare for all will save us 2 trillions". It pointed out due to the new "sufficiency" created through drug distribution by the government, 2 trillions will be saved. Unfortunately, the report didn't mention on what will differs from the current situation. If medicare for all is applied, in order to achieve that fantasy saving of 2 trillions, all American citizens must comply to that unrealistic program, destroying the free market, insurance companies, and probably the entire federal budget credibility, because to achieve that 32 trillion dollars mark over 10 years, the tax rate would have to be doubled immediately and then still have to be raised one more time, want to know why, read the report. And again, inequality when the top 1% will again, pay for more free stuff for idiots. Here's a simple logic, if the poor can't do anything to save their own asses, do you expect them to do anything when all of their living is paid for by somebody else? There, fact check, that, you have all the time you need. Give out some replies, idiot. If you can't, I suggest that you stop believing in this delusional "Latinas" or whatever the term she uses to attract unemployed people, and get a job.
    1
  5229. 1
  5230. 1
  5231. 1
  5232. 1
  5233. 1
  5234. 1
  5235. 1
  5236. 1
  5237. 1
  5238. 1
  5239. 1
  5240. 1
  5241. 1
  5242. 1
  5243. 1
  5244. 1
  5245. 1
  5246. 1
  5247. 1
  5248. 1
  5249. 1
  5250. 1
  5251. 1
  5252. 1
  5253. 1
  5254. 1
  5255. 1
  5256. 1
  5257. 1
  5258. 1
  5259. 1
  5260. 1
  5261.  @KillerT-Bone  Because it would killed more Russians than necessary and kill countless Ukrainians civilians for very little gains. You need to go learn some history, some geography and some math. You're severely lacking in all sides. There is nothing worth of value in Ukraine that Russia hasn't taken yet except for Odessa, but that place has no value until there's peace and economic trade. So right now Russia established a sea blockade there. But the rest of the place is literally worthless, Kiev is a worthless piece of land, no oil, no facility, no resources. Why would Russia kill tens of thousands of people conquering something totally worthless? Now Russia is only using 15% of their power, 5% is a bit too low. But 15% of their troops are still dozens of thousands of people. So I'm so sorry that the Russian leaders don't share your contempt for human lives. They are holding back, kid. They're calling up reserves to be in reserves currently stationed at their own borders. They haven't even deployed the reserves into the battlefield. That is holding back. Now of course Russia can just kill nearly a million civilians like the American pigs did in Iraq. But unfortunately, they don't also share the Americans contempt for human lives. They can easily win in exchange for maybe a million civilian casualties and dozens of thousands of Russian soldiers. But they're too kind for that. You see, pal. Not everybody is like the American pigs, they don't go around killing people and civilians just because of their ego.
    1
  5262. 1
  5263. 1
  5264. 1
  5265. 1
  5266. 1
  5267. 1
  5268. 1
  5269. 1
  5270. 1
  5271. 1
  5272. 1
  5273. 1
  5274. 1
  5275. 1
  5276. 1
  5277. 1
  5278. 1
  5279. 1
  5280. 1
  5281. 1
  5282. 1
  5283. 1
  5284. 1
  5285. 1
  5286. 1
  5287. 1
  5288. 1
  5289. 1
  5290. 1
  5291. 1
  5292. 1
  5293. 1
  5294. 1
  5295. 1
  5296. 1
  5297. 1
  5298. 1
  5299. 1
  5300. 1
  5301. 1
  5302. 1
  5303. 1
  5304. 1
  5305. 1
  5306. 1
  5307. 1
  5308. 1
  5309. 1
  5310. 1
  5311. 1
  5312. 1
  5313. 1
  5314. 1
  5315. 1
  5316. 1
  5317. 1
  5318. 1
  5319. 1
  5320. 1
  5321. 1
  5322. 1
  5323. 1
  5324. 1
  5325. 1
  5326. 1
  5327. 1
  5328. 1
  5329. 1
  5330. 1
  5331. 1
  5332. 1
  5333. 1
  5334. 1
  5335. 1
  5336. 1
  5337. 1
  5338. 1
  5339. 1
  5340. 1
  5341. 1
  5342. 1
  5343. 1
  5344. 1
  5345. 1
  5346.  @michaelkulman7095  No, hombre. All lands in the world are stolen, because at the beginning of human civilization, there is so much killing and conquering that it's impossible to find the accurate owner of any piece of land. So there needs to have a way to recognize land ownership that doesn't involve the "original owner". But an agreed upon method, and the entire world chose the method of most recent significant ruler since 1945. The 1945 landmark is used because that's when the world comes together to form the UN and stop this whole cycle of conquering and stealing. This applies to all people around the world, not just the Jews. Unfortunately somehow only the Jews are allowed to break this norm and get away with it, so yes, you're right. Rules do differ with them, because they're the the only outright villains here. But again, I would ask you not refer those Zionists as Jewish. They're not Jews, they're fake Jews. It doesn't matter who is the native individual there at all. You got conquered and kicked out, you can't just use violence and force to kill your way back in, especially not after 1945. Are we clear on that, savage individual? The Muslims don't feel that those lands are theirs. Those lands are rightfully theirs, because that area is under the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, the ownership of that land is transferred to them, the Muslims who lives there, like with any other people on this Earth. Denying the Muslims those lands is an outright form of hypocrisy, because they have been living there far longer than the age of America the country. What? Is being treated equally too insulting to you? There is a magical time decided upon by the entire world, 200 years is more than enough. So why don't you stop considering yourself the center of the Earth and get back to real life. The fact is that Israel, if it can exist at all in this modern world, by all logic must follow the same rules as everybody else, and they're not. So they will be forced to follow those rules now, and this time, there's nothing the American Imperialists can do. Somehow the American pigs chose to back an unwinnable position from the first place. They back an extreme, overwhelming minority in the region to oppress the normally recognized owner of the land and in that process provoke a religion 6 times the American population. This isn't 1947, this isn't 1967, times have changed, and you have to catch up.
    1
  5347. 1
  5348. 1
  5349. 1
  5350. 1
  5351. 1
  5352. 1
  5353. 1
  5354. 1
  5355. 1
  5356. 1
  5357. 1
  5358. 1
  5359. 1
  5360. 1
  5361. 1
  5362. 1
  5363. 1
  5364. 1
  5365. 1
  5366. 1
  5367. 1
  5368. 1
  5369. 1
  5370. 1
  5371. 1
  5372. 1
  5373. 1
  5374. 1
  5375. 1
  5376. 1
  5377. 1
  5378. 1
  5379. 1
  5380. 1
  5381. 1
  5382. 1
  5383. 1
  5384. 1
  5385. 1
  5386. 1
  5387. 1
  5388. 1
  5389. 1
  5390. 1
  5391. 1
  5392. 1
  5393. 1
  5394. 1
  5395. 1
  5396. 1
  5397. 1
  5398. 1
  5399. 1
  5400. 1
  5401. 1
  5402. 1
  5403. 1
  5404. 1
  5405. 1
  5406. 1
  5407. 1
  5408. 1
  5409. 1
  5410. 1
  5411. 1
  5412. 1
  5413. 1
  5414. 1
  5415. 1
  5416. 1
  5417. 1
  5418. 1
  5419. 1
  5420. 1
  5421. 1
  5422. 1
  5423. 1
  5424. 1
  5425. 1
  5426. 1
  5427. 1
  5428. 1
  5429. 1
  5430. 1
  5431. 1
  5432. 1
  5433. 1
  5434. 1
  5435. 1
  5436. 1
  5437. 1
  5438. 1
  5439. 1
  5440. 1
  5441. 1
  5442. 1
  5443. 1
  5444. 1
  5445. 1
  5446. 1
  5447. 1
  5448. 1
  5449. 1
  5450. 1
  5451. 1
  5452. 1
  5453. 1
  5454. 1
  5455. ​ @hipsonsogbo  That's another falsity. Gold can be moved easily already because in every single country, they have their own gold exchange and precious metal shop. A store of value is supposed to be only used in the worst case scenario, so the "speed of transaction" is totally an unnecessary feature. Is that the best argument you can come up with? Your baseless assumptions of bitcoin being a better system that will be integrated into society is laughable, because you have no argument to back it. Bitcoin will never be used as the primary means of exchange, because it violates one of the first principle of money. It's distribution doesn't fairly represent the value of labor among people. A bunch of useless people like you will be given infinite monetary power overnight for doing absolutely nothing, just because you hog a bunch of coin early. That's not going to happen, that's the human nature. The only way a crypto currency can be accepted as a means of transaction is when a government adopts it, and the government only adopts it if it's in their favor, or their people's favors. As in it brings them back the same or more benefits than fiat. The US will have gone bankrupted 20 years ago if they can't print more money, why? Because that's the only thing the US can do when they promise endless social security programs to undeserving people. People believe in US military superiority and they believe the dollar will never fall. Because if America loses it's superiority and the dollar is rejected, there will be chaos around the globe that the value of currency is the least of your concern. You think printing money is bad? You don't understand society, kid. Printing money is the only thing keeping America alive. America is taking the global economy hostage with it's military intervention tactics, it's politic interferences tactics, all to keep the dollar important, so that they can print as many treasury bonds as they want because they know other countries need the dollar. Legacy finance doesn't rob people, the people had voted on for legacy finance, and they will support it for as long as they could because to an overwhelming majority of them, the undeserving ones, without the ability to create infinite free money in the fiat system, there's no way they can keep the social security trap alive.
    1
  5456. 1
  5457. 1
  5458.  @hipsonsogbo  No, pal. In El Salvador they adopted it because it's El Salvador, it's a country that nobody really cares for and they elected a frat boy as President. GDP is measurements of production power, not anything else, and El Salvador uses the dollars. They accept Bitcoin but nobody in that country uses Bitcoin to price things, they're too poor for it. Anybody who uses Bitcoin for payment in the last year just lost 70% of their values. You can't use it as payment if their prices fluctuate by a few percent everyday. So go learn some math, darling. El Salvador is the example of how you shouldn't be implementing cryptocurrency into the legal system. It is unfairly distributed Because dummies like you probably hog a decent amount of them for doing nothing. And we don't have any intention of giving you great monetary power. If you have to take El Salvador as an example, you're either really dumb or really desperate. El Salvador is a transition to nothing, it's an example of a pipe dream gone wrong. The job of the government is to help the people, to bring education, healthcare systems, trade regulations. Accepting a new means of transaction does absolutely nothing for their country, the people are still poor and low level workers so go learn some math, pal. That country is encouraging their people to pour the money they needed into speculative assets, there's nothing good about it. The ones who purchased Bitcoin in the last year lost most of their money, and they need every cent of it. It's not a rich country, it's El Salvador, not Monaco. So go learn some math, pal. You don't understand the fundamentals of economics and human behavior, that's why you think the world will gladly give you infinite monetary power by adopting a means of transaction that creates absolutely nothing. If there is a legal crypto means of transaction, it won't be your shitcoin. If you don't like Dogecoin, how about shib coin? Limited amount, totally useless.
    1
  5459. 1
  5460. 1
  5461. 1
  5462. 1
  5463. 1
  5464. 1
  5465. 1
  5466. 1
  5467. 1
  5468. 1
  5469. 1
  5470. 1
  5471. 1
  5472. 1
  5473. 1
  5474. 1
  5475. 1
  5476. 1
  5477. 1
  5478. 1
  5479. 1
  5480. 1
  5481. 1
  5482. 1
  5483. 1
  5484. 1
  5485. 1
  5486. 1
  5487. 1
  5488. 1
  5489. 1
  5490. 1
  5491. 1
  5492. 1
  5493. 1
  5494. 1
  5495. 1
  5496. 1
  5497. 1
  5498. 1
  5499. 1
  5500. 1
  5501. 1
  5502. 1
  5503. 1
  5504. 1
  5505. 1
  5506. 1
  5507. 1
  5508. 1
  5509. 1
  5510. 1
  5511. 1
  5512. 1
  5513. 1
  5514. 1
  5515.  @Retrostarscream  Again, pal, false assumption right there. You're linking the fact that what had happened behind the stage to what Sean Spicer tell reporters. First off, reporters don't have any roles here. Spicer could've told them that the earth is flat and nothing will come to him. So there that is done for for your thesis, at least do some research. Next, Rosenstein said to officials that he won't participate in putting out a false story, you assume this as a proof for what The President had asked him to do, which can't be proven. Following a reasonable interpretation of a story isn't putting out a false story, but yet those 2 are really close to each other. You can't prove what it is, because the "story" here is about subjective arguments between the President and Rosenstein, which can interpret differently if there were false communication between the two. You can't prove anything. And even if the President had directed Rosenstein to tell a fake story, then it can't be charged as obstruction because it doesn't relate to any crime and it's not lying to the investigator, as in how he's talking to the Press and not Mueller. It's the President authority to fire Comey, if he did through an intern or secretary then it would still be legal. You can't charge people of obstruction if they're lying about what they're given the right to do, and what they did isn't even related to the subject of the investigation or toward the investigators. Your case has crumbled even more here. So yeah, pal, law isn't just about quoting stuff that you have no idea what they are. Study!
    1
  5516. 1
  5517. 1
  5518. 1
  5519. 1
  5520. 1
  5521. 1
  5522. 1
  5523. 1
  5524. 1
  5525. 1
  5526. 1
  5527. 1
  5528. 1
  5529. 1
  5530. 1
  5531. 1
  5532. 1
  5533. 1
  5534. 1
  5535.  @liberality  That's a shock, I thought Springer only have esteemed publications on really esteemed fields. Apparently Springers also dip their fingers into the likes of you who apparently don't do any real science. Little buddy, the most significant fraud in history happened at the most prestigious journal. It's the Schon scandal and the papers published in Nature and Science magazines. Schon reported breakthrough experimental results on semiconductor that cannot be replicated by anybody in the world but there's no way of noticing that his results were falsified until he slipped up and used the same data in one paper in another paper. So basically the only reason they caught Schon cheating was because he made a rookie mistakes while cheating. The reason there's no way of telling whether Schon faked his data or not, is because no experiments anywhere are identical to another. That's the nature of the real world, everything follows a normal distribution, there are errors in the experimental process, no matter how small can lead to an unsuccessful experiment. That's what happens when you do real science, especially in really delicate field such as semiconductor physics or quantum physics. Why don't you go learn some math? Whatever your deal with Springer was, it must belong to the least esteemed field, because you seemingly don't know the basic that every serious scientist knows. The ability to fully understand and verify something is getting harder and harder everyday till the point that's not feasible to fully understand everything. Research are getting more and more specialized that unless you're doing the exact same sub field, you won't be able to understand it fully. That makes the authentication process as difficult as ever and as meaningless as ever. Because it's impossible to fully authenticate something. That's real science, it's hard and it's challenging and it's prone to mistakes. It's unlike your nonsense where it's sugar and spice and everything nice. Publications make mistakes all the time, because they're humans, their stamp of authority is getting more and more meaningless by the day because they don't have the resources to replicate all the cutting edge research around the world on huge scale. Like I pointed out, an experimental result of a new kind of crystal that took 2 months to grow, 20 of them are submitted at the same time for 20 different kind of crystal. Are you going to take 40 months to grow all 20 different kind to verify all of them? Not to mention the error in growing them in which the know how is not widely known? And you can't get more machine because one machine is insanely expensive and most researching centers only have one of them?
    1
  5536. 1
  5537. 1
  5538. 1
  5539. 1
  5540. 1
  5541. 1
  5542. 1
  5543. 1
  5544. 1
  5545. 1
  5546. 1
  5547. 1
  5548. 1
  5549. 1
  5550. 1
  5551. 1
  5552. 1
  5553. 1
  5554. 1
  5555. 1
  5556. 1
  5557. 1
  5558. 1
  5559. 1
  5560. 1
  5561. 1
  5562. 1
  5563. 1
  5564. 1
  5565. 1
  5566. 1
  5567. 1
  5568. 1
  5569. 1
  5570. 1
  5571. 1
  5572. 1
  5573.  @changster15  I don't know if you had ever heard of synonyms, pal. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That's pretty clear what it meant. The 5th amendment is about due process in a court of law. Has nothing to do with this "substantive" nonsense, those are procedure guarantee, they don't guarantee any substance, not that a specific one you can name. Fourteenth amendment is again, equal protection, no person can be stripped of life, liberty, property without due process. It has nothing to do with a vague general right. Study real law, pal, you're confusing textualist and strict constructionist, which accounts for a very small percent of the textualist. All of the Supreme Court Justices are textualists, however some of them are originalists, which means they can only interpret the text on how it was understood at the time it was passed. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution, you can't just vaguely interpreted texts based on however you want it. Substantive Due Process is a textualist interpretation, it is based on the text that contains the word "due process", however, it is a main "Living Constitution" interpretation, which accounts a considerable percentage of textualists. And this interpretation, like Scalia said, doesn't make any sense. You keep inventing protections barely based on any evidence, any logical reasoning, but varies from people to people by opinion, that's not law, that's tyranny. You don't get substantive due process when you read both the fifth and the fourteenth amendment. You FEEL as if there is such a thing when you read the fifth and the fourteenth, which is great but society doesn't work based on your feelings. You need to have a sane legal argument based on words, logics, precedent, not make belief.
    1
  5574. 1
  5575. 1
  5576. 1
  5577. 1
  5578. 1
  5579. 1
  5580. 1
  5581. 1
  5582. 1
  5583. 1
  5584. 1
  5585. 1
  5586. 1
  5587. 1
  5588. 1
  5589. 1
  5590. 1
  5591. 1
  5592. 1
  5593. 1
  5594. 1
  5595. 1
  5596. 1
  5597. 1
  5598. 1
  5599. 1
  5600. 1
  5601. 1
  5602. 1
  5603. 1
  5604. 1
  5605. 1
  5606. 1
  5607. 1
  5608. 1
  5609. 1
  5610. 1
  5611. 1
  5612. 1
  5613. 1
  5614. 1
  5615. 1
  5616. 1
  5617. 1
  5618. 1
  5619. 1
  5620. 1
  5621. 1
  5622. 1
  5623. 1
  5624. 1
  5625. 1