Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox News Angry Harvard Students Know Stuff" video.

Actually the US spends money to prevent violence in the world. There will always be conflict in the world, the US pushes for a peaceful way to solve them. I guess we can sit back and the conflict can become larger and larger, or we can try to solve them. If you want to look at history as a whole the UK was worse. It just took over land, the US tries to prevent violence. Seems like Harvard students don't know much.
13
Colin Silver So the solution is to hide and not develop allies or help out other countries that a lot of our citizens came from?
2
Ylze Tyr Here is the fact. Your past few comments have been you saying time and time again that I am wrong with no justification. I shot down your two citations in that one, it was a court case that was different than the issue at hand, and another had 3 justices that disagreed with you. You asked me if I were smarter than justices and I asked you the same thing because there were 3 that disagreed with you. You didn't understand that the issue was controversial and that there are people that are saying you are wrong. You ignored those three justices to favor you. You cherry picked people you support. You can't say I am wrong when you never showed I was wrong. You lack of understanding is understandable. It is frustrating to me as a scientist to see individuals not understand it but is a hard subject. I attend a university of 20,000 students and only 7 of them are taking inorganic chem with me.
2
***** How? The US is really the only country pushing for peace. There will always be conflict in this world. The US spends more money trying to stop violence. Look at the Iraq war, longer than WWII but far less deaths. We were working with the Iraq government to stop the terrorism there. The second we pull out ISIS comes because no other country is a threat to them. I sometimes wish the US would pull out of every country and just watch the world become even more violent and than people can really learn.
1
***** We don't make the place worse. When we don't get involved the situation gets worse. Look at WWII for example. We sat by and did nothing at the beginning and the situation got worse.
1
***** Yep, we just go around killing everyone that looks different than us or isn't American. That is how the US works. Screw foreign relations, we just want everyone to die. Reality is that we do work with other governments to try to better a situation and if we were to pull out our troops the world will get worse with even more violence.
1
The J-man Iraq is a complex situation. We get involved and people die, but it does get better. We don't get involved than a radical group takes over and becomes a threat to the world.
1
Ylze Tyr Creationism is a theory but not a scientific theory since it can't survive the scientific method, thus that is why creationism isn't science but faith based. I mentioned that before you didn't seem to get it.
1
Colin Silver And when we pull out of Iraq the place got worse. We pull out and ISIS came. This isn't an easy solution and is almost unwinnable. We stay put the places get better but people don't realize it because it is still not good. We pull out the place gets worse.
1
Ylze Tyr I didn't run away from my other debate. You resorted you saying I was wrong and that was it. I never said creationism is a fact. And I said creationism is not a scientific theory in that it doesn't survive the scientific method and isn't accepted by science. Really, learn to read and lay off the weed.
1
Dyvim Tvar The term "living wage" is subjective and doesn't mean anything when it comes to policy making. I understand the term, it is just one that is irrelevant.
1
22steve5150 How? Who are these enemies we put in power?
1
freedom1234573 It depends. Just because someone goes to Harvard doesn't mean they are smart. Someone who goes to Harvard Law will not be smarter than me when it comes to science or even history (depending on how much they study that on the side), or the military (as in if they have family and friends in it or joined themselves), or business practices or other areas of life. They will be smarter than me in law but not necessarily in other subjects. Harvard is more of a breeding ground of politics. It did produce the most presidents and VPs.
1
V8PORS And a lot of that military spending is spent preventing violate conflict.
1
22steve5150 We didn't put those people in power. They would have, or someone else, would have come into power either way. Especially in the middle east. Yes we do train other armies in foreign lands but that is an advantage. It is easier to fight someone when you know what they are going to do, plus you build a relation with them so that you can solve a conflict off the battle field with them easier. The military isn't about going in there with guns and killing people, it is far more complicated than that. We spend a lot of time and resources preventing violence. If we didn't it would be a lot worse.
1
TheBestMovieAlive Hate to play this card but George Bush and Obama both went to Harvard. It isn't so much of what you know but who you know there. Are they smart? Yes, you have to be to attend Harvard, but that doesn't mean they are the best and brightest. There are several individuals that are just as intelligent in smaller colleges or who didn't even go to college. Look at Tom Morello, he attend Harvard and the man is a idiot when it comes to economic ideas. He majored in political science. Now who is smarter, a successful business owner running a small business or a PoliSci major from Harvard? Who is smarter, an engineer from Missouri S&T or a PoliSci major from Harvard? Who is smarter a pharmacist from Texas A&M Kingsville or a PoliSci major from really anywhere? It is all really subjective. Harvard had the most presidents and VPs from there. Coming from there you may speak and write well but are you really smart? Do you really know anything? That is what one has to look at.
1
Ylze Tyr No, I did say you have to be smart to go to Harvard. What I am saying is that just because you go to Harvard doesn't mean you are the brightest person out there. Seriously, learn to read.
1
Ylze Tyr" Are they smart? Yes, you have to be to attend Harvard, but that doesn't mean they are the best and brightest." What I said in an earlier to explain my position. That comment is un-edited as well so it isn't like I changed it. Seriously, you're so fucking stupid that this is really easy.
1
***** That is the challenge of the middle east. If we are there it is bad, if we leave it actually gets worse. It isn't an easy solution.
1
***** I can't survive off of that but a mother with a rich husband can. My girlfriend was making nothing for months and she lived because I was paying for everything, she was making $0/hr. You get what I am saying?
1
***** Yes because advancement in weaponry isn't needed.
1
Bernd Lauerte They gave weapons that we have the codes for and know how to stop. It is a lot better than them getting weapons we have no clue what they do.
1
Ylze Tyr What hypocrisy? As I said, lay off the weed and learn to read. I said seems like Harvard students don't much because here we have Harvard students, who are considered the best and the brightest not knowing how our foreign relations work. They lack that knowledge and I was expressing it in a way to mock Harvard student. I is true that just because someone goes to Harvard it doesn't mean they are smart, or intelligent is what I should say. Several people get in because of connections. I used Bush as an example and Obama as well. Your failure to see that (and how you lack to mention that I said Obama went there) shows that you are not reading what I wrote but cherry pick what you want and twist words to discredit me. Plus the fact that you said I was a right wing drone which I am not. If you complete an education in Harvard, or any college in general, you are smart. Are you intelligent? That can be debated. As I said, someone graduating with a pharmacy degree from Texas A&M Kingsville is most likely more intelligent than someone who has a polisci degree from Harvard. Or someone with an engineering degree from Missouri S&T is most likely more intelligent than someone with a history degree from Harvard. That is the position I am standing on. Sorry you lack reading comprehension skills. Hope that is a little more clear for you. Now I will wait and see how you will cherry pick this to try to discredit me.
1
Ylze Tyr Definition of hypocrisy: " : the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy You don't know my actions thus you don't know if I am a hypocrite or not. You say I contradicted myself, that isn't true either. I made a radical statement and then justified why I said what I said. In the process I settled down to a more moderate approach but the overlying idea was that people from Harvard are not individuals who know everything are can be clueless on several issues. None of the background of those students were mentioned. They all could have been music majors for all you know. You don't know what their hobbies are either. I am pursuing a PhD in Physical Chemistry, but I don't devote my whole life to it. I do study other subjects as well. Just because you can name one individual who smoked weed and did well doesn't mean it did you well. Charles Bukowski was a drunk and was a great writer. Several of my friends smoke weed and are fine. Just to some it doesn't help their situation. Like to some alcohol makes their life worse. Weed doesn't seem to be helping you any. Usually with ignorant people like you I just tend to ignore. You called my a hypocrite but don't even know what the word means. With that I would just take you as an ignorant but when you celebrate that you won and "destroyed" me and than claim that I am a "right wing fox/Limbaugh done" it really puts me in a position to make you look foolish. I don't watch Fox or listen to Limbaugh. People like use who try to use them as an insult is using what is called a genetic fallacy. Just because someone receives their info from such sources like Limbaugh or Fox doesn't mean it is bad. You never explained why it is poor. I can do the same thing, you are nothing more than a left wing MSNBC/Maher/O'Donnell/Morgan....... drone. I don't because that is a childish game left for the ignorant. As I said, lay off the weed because it isn't helping you concentrate.
1
Joe Lippard As I said, there are conflicts always happening in the world. We try our best to prevent violence and a lot of conflicts are settled off the battle field.
1
Ylze Tyr Considering how you don't even know what hypocrisy means I am not going to take much what you say seriously. Also you refuse to challenge experts. I never said experts were wrong like you claim I did in another comment, I am just showing another side of the issue. You do that when you move up in life in more advanced positions whether it be in politics, academics or the private sector. I guess if all you do is smoke weed and live in your parents basement you never have to experience challenging so called "experts", it is true that ignorance is bliss and you are living it. Seriously, take a step back and look at what you are typing and who you are trying to attack. I have debunked your sources, I have turned your own words on you, I have explained my positions on topic and you just merely say I am wrong with zero justification. You are losing this battle son. I am sorry, admit defeat. I use to be defeated a lot, I didn't sit there and cry about it though, I informed myself and was smarter the next time. You are probably some young individual. I respect the fire and passion, you just need more experience. Go out and challenge "experts", you will learn a lot. And seriously, until you can manage it lay off the weed.
1
bucs03fan He went to both.
1
V8PORS Now compare that to other wars. There were more deaths in WWII in less time.
1
Ylze Tyr In the middle east we are fighting terrorists who were unorganized and unpredictable. In WWII we were fighting Japan, Germany and Italy (to a point). WWII lasted 4 years and was deadly. The wars in the Middle East lasted longer and didn't see as many American casualties. The simple fact is that we push to prevent violence. There will always be conflicts, we try our best to prevent violence. If you actually knew what when on in the military you would know that.
1
***** Actually most wars were started by European countries in the past. In WWII the US did very little and the conflict grew. We are actively involved in limiting violence and considering how we have been since WWII and before WWI we are doing a good job, no real major war to speak of compared to what the world use to go through.
1
Ylze Tyr I said no major war to speak of since WWII, sorry that my typo confused you. Yes we have had some major wars before WWII but the Europeans have created more, that was my response to the other poster saying that history has the US being violent. Since WWII those "major" wars such as the Gulf War and the Vietnam war were not as deadly and when you look at the Vietnam war it is similar to what we are facing in the Middle East, guerrilla warfare of unpredictable fighters on their own turf. In the US we push to train other soldiers and develop a relationship with them. In training them we know what they will do and with the relationship developed with them we can settle conflicts off of the battle ground. Noticed how since WWII the "major" wars were against groups of people we have almost no contacts with and hate the US? We would like to keep it peaceful and try to do that. N. Korea hates us, we know little about them. Establishing peace with them is hard, same with terrorists in the Middle East. As I said before I refused to answer your questions because I always debunk you and show that you are wrong and all you do is cry and scream that I am wrong with no justification. As with the minimum wage video, you simply refuse to look for the comment I posted 3 times. I am still waiting for the intelligent rebuttal on that one but all I get is you saying you are too blind to see it.
1
Ylze Tyr I am posting a comment on a video viewed mostly by liberals. When I do that I give an opposing side of the issue. Most are so radical and myopic, including yourself, that they will disagree with me even after I display them with a ton of info.
1
Ylze Tyr I gave examples of wars in the past and wars now. Everyone else just said that the US is involved in a lot of wars and killed a lot of people but they lacked a lot of info. Their examples are the Middle East which we are fighting terrorists. The fact we are able to keep violence in the level it is in the Middle East with the terrorist is great. In all with these liberal videos I get the most radical responses. You are one of them. You have called me a "right winger" before and claimed that I get all my info from Fox News and Rush, all which are not true. I am a moderate, and while being a moderate can be frustrating in that I see a lot of radicals, it does have me see who are the radicals. When a liberal calls me a right winger or a conservative calls me a left winger than I know they are a radical with no care of learning anything new and enjoys being ignorant. It is kind of sad because they are the ones hindering this country, you are a part of that. At the same time I don't care, I am developing skills and an education to eventually become very well off, own a home, retire early, enjoy luxuries in life and just be happy. So when I see the destruction from liberals I will just say that they asked for it. I was saying all along how dumb their policies were. You can lead a horse to water you just can't get it to drink.
1
Ylze Tyr No, a troll is someone who comes on here and says something along the lines of "liberals are just pussies". I don't do that, I actually attempt to give an intelligent counter argument on the issues. You should really learn what a "troll" is. A Troll would also go on every video and write something, I don't respond to that I don't have opinion on, especially when I can't back it up.
1
***** Really? Since WWII the US has done a great job and limiting violence. We have a good standing with most countries around the world. When you look at Vietnam and the Middle East you are dealing with terrorist, that is why those wars are so hard to fight. The governments in the Middle East supported us though. There will always be conflicts in this world, always have been. We try our best to prevent it.
1
Ylze Tyr A poll of 66,000 people of a world of over 7 billion is minute. You would believe anything, would ya?
1
Ylze Tyr Polling 66,000 citizens in around 65 countries of world with over 7 billion people is not very good data. You have to realize we prop up the rest of the world with our military. During WWII we sat back at the beginning and chaos happen. We got involved and had to end it. Not other country pushes to fight against terrorists. The just sit back and honestly disrespect us even though we help them. The honest response is that those countries, especially European ones and full of pussies that are ungrateful. They may hate us but they will be worse off without us. I sometimes feel we should pull all of our troops out and watch them fall apart and beg for our help.
1
Ylze Tyr You didn't back up your claim with fact, you backed it up with a poll that asked for people's opinion. A poll that consistent of around 0.0009% of the people in the world and in only 65 countries. People view the US in a negative light in other countries, people in other countries like the US which is why the immigrate here. People in the US love the US, and others hate it. The fact is that most people are ignorant in what goes on around in their own country, let alone the world. I know how polls work, they are not a very strong indicator of much. That poll you showed is not supportive of anything. I bet is you were to ask them which country is the best most of them will say their own. I bet if you were to break down the question, or release proper info to people and then re-poll them your results will be different. Giving out an opinion poll and saying it is fact shows how little you know.
1
Ylze Tyr Once again, your claim is backed up by a pool of 0.0009% of people in the world, not very strong.
1
***** I wrote it earlier that in Vietnam we were fighting against guerilla warfare which makes those types of wars more deadly. The US does a lot in training other armies to develop a strong personal relationship with them and to know how they will act in warfare. And how cares what other countries think of us. As I said earlier, I actually want us to pull troops out and see how fast the world falls apart without us propping them up.
1
booley No, there is always violence. Just take a look at history, violence and conflict has always existed. It is harder to prevent violence which is what the US is trying to do.
1
Ylze Tyr You see, it wouldn't matter with you what I say because you will just twist it around in attempts to make me look bad. I see you completely refuse to mention about productivity in the other video on the min. wage. You just cherry pick what you want to present and here and then say "I won" after every time.
1
booley I said prevent violence. It is hard to prevent violence, especially with terrorists and radicals out there (N. Korea for example who flat out hates the US). But we try out best to avoid violent conflict. Mankind has a history of violence, anyone who has simply live life knows that. The US tries to prevent violence.
1
Ylze Tyr Considering how you keep dodging my questions I would say at worst we are even. hahahahahahahahaha
1
Ylze Tyr It isn't just this thread, it is other threads. When I debunk you in any way you either close your ears and say "la la la", or change the subject, or just say "I won" and that is it. You are pointless in arguing against. I actually come back with a legitimate response. I realized that when people do what you do then they have nothing relevant to say.
1