Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marksuave25 OK, then we are in agreement.
It costs us billions each year, which is divided on all contributors.
The combined damage by insurance fraud is staggering, and everybody who engages in it isn't a "hero".
To address your second comment:
We must change the way we look at this.
This is a conversation I had with an uncle of mine a while back (paraphrased, because I don't remember the exact words...
Uncle: "Remember that damage to my roof due to aging? I declared that as storm damage after last week's storm and got a 3000 dollars....haha haha....they didn't even check, because there were so many claims flooding them."
Me: "Would you also steal 50 cents from me, if I didn't look?"
Uncle [shocked]: " No of course not, why do you ask?"
Me: "Well, you just did. Every time somebody somewhere does that, premiums go up. Somebody ends up paying."
Uncle: "....but, but...it's my money, I paid for 30 years and never got anything out of it..."
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Yes, millions of people see nothing wrong with their little scheme, and even proudly brag about it amongst friends and relatives.
Until most people see this as nothing else but "theft", the attitudes won't change and the premiums will go up.
If a friend's brags to you about "doing in that greedy insurance company" and "getting some back" of all he has paid, maybe remind him that "insurance" shouldn't be confused with a "savings account" from which one can make a withdrawal after paying in for a few years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jabib Galt Easy.
Socialism is, in a nutshell "the means of production and distribution of goods under the control of the state", and often means wide scale control of the economy by the people.
Populism is, also in a nutshell "handing out of goodies (social programmes) in return for populist support.
Both are present in many forms, and in many political and economic models.
China is a Marxist Socialist state. Google it.
Examples of populism? Currently, for example Poland (handing out state revenues as "baby money" to increase birth rates), or the US (Trump using state revenues, i.e. trade tariffs to struggling farmers).
Such "freebies" and "goodies" in return for support of populist leaders is common. It led to the downfall of Greece, after cheap EU loans stayed out after the financial crisis of 2009.
It also led to the downfall of Venezuala, because the state could not keep up with the promises it had made to supporters, once the price of oil fell...
How am I doing so far?
You seem to be a smart chap. I suggest doing your research elsewhere, and not on the channel of a conservative think tank, skewing and indoctrinating the uninformed into chanting "VENEZUELA" and "SOCIALISM" .
They are using misdirection and spinning information for political purposes...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@apexpredatorXx Yes, a great comment.
Even the Bible implores God's followers "not argue about words."
https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/2-14.htm
Obviously the message of the Bible, taken as an entirety, not cherry picked, is as follows: be good, do good
Simple.
Yet, on videos like this by PragerU his most devout followers judge, interpret words, dismiss, get offended, and "strike back" ...because of words.
Irony...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Reality with re. to the "good whites" who "abolished slavery".
Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it.
In a changing world where more and more people were becoming literate (mid 19th century), and newspapers and knowledge spread widely, it was simply a good "finger pointing"-tool.
The states which had abolished it, and paid the slave owners handsomely as an incentive, could now "finger point" at "bad states/people" in a giant propaganda match.
With a few exceptions, nobody "abolished slavery" because they woke up one morning feeling sorry for "poor slaves" lanquishing in misery.
In GB, the families who gained millions over millions of Pounds in return for "abolishing slavery" in a massive "trickle up"-scheme, at the expense of taxpayers, were paid in advance. The last "installment" of this gaint "wealth distribution"-scheme from the bottom up (the armies of taxpayers) to the top (ruling class), was only paid back in 2015.
LOL...BAMBOOZLED...
Sorry "taxpayer class".
You lose.
Again, and again, and again, and again...
The families who received their "reinbursement" for "lost property" (human beings) upfront 200 years ago, still block any and all freedom of information acts, to keep hidden who they are.
YOU are not soposed to find out "WHO GAINED BIGTIME" 200 hundred years ago, but YOU must bleat out the "whites are good people, cos we ended slavery"-narrative...
It was done for gain for the own "empire", at the expense of some other "empire".
2
-
Dear PragerU.
Morals are, according to definition, standards of behaviour.
No, it wasn't ok to have slaves 200 or 300 years ago, because the Bible says to "do onto others, as you wish to be done onto", setting the moral standard for Christians.
If I remember correctly, they were reading the same Bible 200 or 300 years ago. The message in the Bible was the same, and the behaviour of slave traders, owners, or the markets selling them like animals was therefore immoral.
The question "Was it moral?" doesn't change, because a few hundred years passed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2