Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. 370
  2. 29
  3. 17
  4. 17
  5. 7
  6. 6
  7. 5
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  3/5 vote was a result of the Southern slave owners wanting to count their slaves in order to gain seats in Congress, where representatives are granted based on population size. The slave owners demanded they be allowed to count their slaves in this, despite Refusing to allow those slaves to actually vote for their representatives. The Northern states acknowledged that the slaves were people and deserved a voice, even though the additional southern representatives wouldn't actually represent the slaves. it was a compromise to get the country unified by acknowledging slaves as humans and giving the south undue voting power in congress by being allowed to count their slaves as voting members of the population, while also denying them the vote. The North Acknowledged the slaves as people deserving of representation, while the slave owners denied them representation. The 3/5 rule was a bid by the slave owners to gain power in Congress, and used their slaves to get it. Had the Southern states been allowed to count 100% of the slave population towards their representatives in Congress, they would have had the power to prevent the abolition of slavery, possibly even well into the 20th century. Had the North not granted the 3/5 rule to the South, slavery would have been ended even sooner in American history. But go on taking history out of context and continue believing the rule proves All of America was somehow racist, despite only 6% of those early Americans owning slaves. Ignore the fact that most Americans today are descendants of immigrants to the US After the abolition of slavery. I am of European descent for example, but my family didn't immigrate to the US from Switzerland until 1902. No history of slavery in our family ever, and we can trace our family back to the 1400s. Many Irish were slaves. Many Americans aren't even of European descent. But lets just blanket lump everyone into the collective guilts of a select few individuals/families from hundreds of years ago. Lets blame people for the sins of the father, even blaming those whose fathers never sinned, and giving reparations to those whose family were never slaves in the US. Punishing those who are alive today and did no wrong, for the deeds of those long dead, rewarding those who were never wronged. But lets not forget the first draft Declaration of Independence, which we still have the original copy, clearly and in No uncertain terms abolished the slave trade, and ownership of humans at all. The US wanted to abolish slavery from day one. Also, the first drafts of the Constitution also included the abolition of slavery once again, but was removed in order to get ratified by dissenting states. Jefferson in his later years wrote a letter to Madison lamenting his failure to abolish slavery, but said that the seeds of abolition were in motion and the US would abolish slavery in about 40yrs. 60yrs later the US abolished slavery. Not a bad prediction on his part. All of these original documents still exist, hence how we know this. Also, there is a Lot of amazing Black American history between US revolution and WW1. But it was written out of the public school history books, by Woodrow Wilson. But you can still find all of this amazing Black American history from those eras if you go do actual research and actually study our real history. The British are the ones who brought slavery to the US, and the Africans are the ones who enslaved their people and sold them to the British slavers. Did you know slavery still exists to this day in Africa, and other parts of the world, like China?
    2
  21.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  Well, the 3/5 rule doesn't apply in the moment. Of course you try to change the subject when you find the context of history doesn't support your argument. Cherry pick a period in history and ignore everything that led up to those moments. How i what i am talking about Not related to the 3/5 rule? People claim America is inherently racist, despite all historical evidence to teh contrary. I point out how other parts of the world remain slavers and racist to this day, and how those who complain about slavery and racism wont lift a finger to call those other countries out, wont lift a finger to speak against slavery in other countries. For example, Apple uses slave labor to make their cellphones many who complain of slavery use. Many companies use slave labor in china and elsewhere, making clothes and other items those who claim to care about slavery own and use. China is insanely racist against Africans, black Africans in particular, to this very day. But i here No condemnation whatsoever of china. In America, black people can succeed, and are respected, and hold positions of power in business, education, politics, etc. But Somehow we should focus on the farce that is the lie that America is inherently racist, and ignore Actual slavery and racism. The 3/5 rule never should have existed, and had it not, and slaves not been counted in the south towards representations, the north would have out voted the south and ended slavery much sooner. But, without the 3/5th rule, America might never have existed at all. Jefferson and others compromised, knowing it was more important to get the country formed and functioning to keep it together, then figure out how to fix things like slavery once the formal gov was in place. Ideally slavery would have been abolished in the Declaration of Independence, but that's not the way it happened. But we eventually managed to end slavery anyways. And we as a country tried very hard to end slavery for many decades, and a lot of good people died ending slavery.
    2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32.  @CycleWerkz  "It is to show clearly that your claimed credentials cannot be true." so you think being long winded on climate disproves who I am? My view of your intelligence is dropping lower with every comment. I started out with pretty high regard, now you're in the gutter. "I'm exposing you for fraudulent claims." oh really, quote me exactly what I said about my credentials that is fraudulent. "When you failed to accept my overly gracious apology with continued attack, that's when you engaged the huckleberry. " there was nothing "overly gracious" about anything you said. If you feel debate is an "attack", you're none too bright. Debate is science. Deal with it. But I think you simply got an ego check and aren't taking it well. "So now I will strip down everything you wrote and explain why you cannot have possibly earned a BSME. " you realize BSME is not about climate, right? But go ahead, make a fool of yourself. "And further, I contend that you never started the courses. If you ever took any Physics courses, it all went in one ear then out the other. You really should stop making this claim as you do not know nearly enough to get away with it. " bold claims, better have hard evidence for this. And yet you accuse me of attacking you, no evidence to support that. Projection much? "Early in this thread you claimed you had substantial knowledge in this subject matter. Here's your quote, "I'm a Mechanical Engineer, thermodynamics, heat transfer, chemistry, physics, etc." This statement is redundant because all the listed studies are required in the BSME degree plan." I never claimed to have "substantial knowledge", only that I did a deep dive into it. That quote has nothing to do with me claiming to have "substantial knowledge" on the issue. You're not very good at this are you? The point of my comment is that most people have NO idea what an ME curriculum even covers, and I can't assume your level of knowledge and understanding, so I made it clear for your or anyone else's benefit. But go ahead, and read into it what isn't there. "You made claim you had substantial studies in Chemistry, but then walked it back "I'm no Chemist"; as a lame excuse for your initial comment massive errors. " you're lying again. I never claimed to have "substantial studies in chemistry", i merely stated having chemistry knowledge sufficient to understand the issue. But go ahead, keep spinning lies. This is getting entertaining. And other people will be able to fact check you in our comments. I am not a chemist, and so by stating that, i am qualifying my statements and telling people that I'm no expert in chemistry and that they should double check for themselves what I am saying. But you're so dumb you can't understand this. I know kids smarter than you. "You should really stop trying to read my comments as you lack the prerequisite knowledge to understand it." then why write them? who are you writing it for if you're addressing it to me? and you claim to be smart. Yet here I am picking apart your lies. "You are definitely not trying to write a research paper as you are not even qualified to read a scientific research paper." Anyone can write a research paper, so long as it adheres to the rules of science. Something you're not doing now. But if I'm not qualified, as you falsely claim, then you are even less qualified. You've let emotions override logic. Yet I am the one who holds world records, world firsts, do work for NASA and others, and whose other successes are already being discussed in college history courses. But keep going, this is a fascinating study of the human mind. "The irony of your next statement epitomizes your fraud. "You have no basis upon which to make such an absurd hypothesis. I provided nowhere near enough context for you to draw this conclusion," Here's why this is so much fun. I did not make a hypothesis I made an accusation. There is no Engineer anywhere who would misuse the word hypothesis. A hypothesis is only used as a word by scientists as a step in the Scientific Method. it is a very advanced step only taken when all observations confirm the statement. This point is so driven the first year, you would not be able to make this mistake. The Arts majors use hypothesis very differently. Even if you tried to use the non-scientific definition, your usage was completely wrong. This definition is a proposed explanation with little evidence needing further investigation. So it could never be a conclusion. " wow, lot of word salad there to try to justify yourself. Twisting and squirming to try to make it seem like you were right and I was wrong. But you can't win when you made baseless accusations that can't be backed up with factual evidence. You literally accused me of fraud, without evidence. And as of yet, you've still failed to quote me where I said anything fraudulent, only putting words in my mouth and accusing me of things I never said. I'm still waiting for you to quote me where I committed fraud....... A hypothesis is more than a WORD, it is a whole Sentence, maybe more, in which you make an assertion which you believe to be true. Next step is to provide OBJECTIVE evidence to support your assertions, which you have failed to do thus far. I knew what a hypothesis was in middles school. the fact you had to learn it in first year of college tells me a lot about you. It's clear the art major here is you. "You actually did provide ample information to determine you are lying about your credentials. I actually spelled it all out in detail. You do not know enough to understand why the proof is evident. " you spelled out Nothing. where is your evidence? what did you spell out in detail. you rambled on about hypothesis definitions, credentials, made multiple false accusations, lied, slung insults, but never once provided a shred of evidence to support your hypothesis that I am, "lying about your credentials". "Face it, you're exposed." exposed? I think the general public who bother to waste their time reading this will come to a different conclusion.
    1
  33.  @CycleWerkz  "You keep demanding things I've already provided. YOU provided all the evidence needed to disprove your claims. " ridiculous claims require evidence. you THINK you've proven something, but have not. "When you claimed a BSME, it includes collegiate Chemistry and Physics completion." exactly, thus having a background knowledge of physics and chemistry helps figuring out climate change propaganda. " So your claim of this degree equals your claim to these studies. The fact you don't know this indicates you never even started this degree plan." uh, wtf? are you brain damaged? "Your first comment demonstrates you do not have a fundamental understanding of thermal dynamics. " you keep saying this stuff, but have yet to quote me on where I went wrong to claim I have no education in thermodynamics (which you couldn't even spell correctly by the way). " None of these issues would have been the thoughts of anyone having completed the first year of Pre-ME anywhere in the world. And if you had done even the simplest point-n-click reading, you would have known all this. Therefore you claim you did a deep dive is falsified. " exactly, ME has nothing to do with climate, and thus my knowledge of climate is not proof of ME degree, or lack thereof. Your argument is childishly stupid. You're trying to claim lack of knowledge in climate is proof a person has no degree in an unrelated topic. This is HIGHLY unscientific on your part. this is woke communist logic. "Your written definition of Hypothesis above is completely wrong and further proves my point. " what i wrote is not THE definition of a hypothesis, it's how it works. But we' know you're too stupid to grasp that. Here is the actual definition of a hypotheis though, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Yet you claim, "A scientific Hypothesis is very much not a guess. It does not need additional research. " in direct opposition to the formal scientific definition. And yes, a hypothesis MUST be researched, tested, and validated, to be true. It MUST be challenged and get repeatable results each time it is challenged to remain true. "Once this group is well convinced their equation cannot be disproven, only then can the publish a Hypothesis." wrong, that's woke gov "science". You pose the hypothesis, then test it to verify it holds up, then subject it to criticism and counters to see if it continues to hold up. As the REAL definition states, the hypothesis is the STARTING POINT. "Every claim you make is fully discredited." simply stating your unfounded opinions doesn't make it true. But I see how the woke indoctrination you received works. "I have provided detailed proof of everything in extensive detail." and I have refuted you at every turn.
    1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1