Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

  1. 3
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25.  @AnnCooper33  uh, I said I stand behind the comments I made. Here is an example "whyamiaracist78 has stated that he's against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He stated it's not needed because of the 14th amendment while ignoring that the Act is an enforcement of the 14th amendment" I do disagree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for two reasons. One, it prevents private businesses from discriminating. Private businesses should be allowed to discriminate and as such us, as a potential consumer, can discriminate back by not doing business with them. In fact, I would like to know what businesses are ran by racists so I can avoid them. I don't want to do business with racists. The second reason is because the 14th amendment exist. Brown v Board was ruled based on the 14th amendment. It ended school segregation without the need of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Segregation could have easily been ended without another law. Basically all that guy does is name call and repeat things I said where most I stand behind. Looking deeper on his comments some things he said are way out of context, such as "whyamiabootlicker78 has defended Amazon's treatment of its workers. Going as far as to say he worked at Amazon. Now with more knowledge about Amazon's labor practices and what they have admitted, he switched to staying silent instead of defending them. " I have worked in Amazon warehouse, twice. Once during graduate school in the summer and again after my graduate studies until I have the job I have now. The working conditions are not bad and a lot of people enjoy working there. A few disgruntle employees does not represent the norm. And no, I did not stay silent, he just ignored me. Also "Before, whyamialiar78 has stated that Garland shouldn't have been appointed because Obama already appointed 2 justices, but he has no problem with Trump appointing 3 justices" No, it was because Obama did not have the senate. It was never about him already having 2 justices.
    1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 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
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1