Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

  1. 38
  2. 30
  3. 22
  4. 18
  5. 15
  6. 13
  7. 12
  8. 12
  9. 11
  10. 11
  11. 11
  12. 10
  13. 9
  14. 9
  15. 9
  16. 9
  17. 9
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 8
  21.  @hv3115  "75% of people in Ontario who end up getting hospitalized" - And as we have seen, Hamburg in Germany did not verify status of 70% of their hospitalizations, and added them up to the unspiked numbers. They're not verifying status on purpose and registering them as unknowns, then using unknowns as "unspiked" in their official data. One region is one country has been caught lying. Do we have to do this for every single square inch of land around the world or are you open to admitting that Ontario is lying too? "omits the point that having [...] mandates to ensure a high percentage of the population is vaccinated is the humane" - Nothing humane about threatening to kick people out of restaurants, gyms and JOBS. You're threatening people's livelihoods. Morally, you're holding a gun to someone's head. You're willing to kill that person by denying them a way to make a living. "without hospitals getting overwhelmed" - Okay, and now we're back to square one. They're still claiming to be overwhelmed despite many countries having 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90% spiking rates. What's your plan of action now? More mandates? "But let's not pretend [...] dont help control this [...]" - Doesn't seem very controlled to me. You get no actual immunity, you can still spread, and the protection is only strong for 3-4 months. This means you're trying to keep it under control with an improper tool that should be a last resort and given to the vulnerable. If you try to spike the whole population, you don't have enough shots to keep the 3-4 month window with the vulnerable.
    8
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 7
  29. 7
  30. 7
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. 6
  36. 6
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. @Commie 1776 "I've studied the subject for most of my life, so I know what I'm talking about" - last time I talked to a your kind I was called a conspiracy theorist for bringing up the fact that Nazis started digging up their own mass graves and burning the bodies when they came across Soviet mass graves and realized that holes in the dirt don't hide evidence of crimes. Just one of your "experts" who called bs on a well documented historical event, and who stopped replying after I linked the sources. The funny thing is, he actually said that if that was true then Russia would have admitted the event was real after the breakup of the USSR. I pointed out that for the sake of easing tensions, the Soviet Union admitted to Poland the massacre was real and happened... before the breakup. in 1989. Embarrassing. Unfortunately we were shotgunning topics at each other in a comments section so he also stopped replying when I pointed out sources that studied Ukrainian population from the 1920s to the 1937 census and after taking into account forced and voluntary displacements, there were around 3 million people short - which means that despite a nominal population growth there were indeed millions of death due to famine and a million deaths that although the cause was disease, the fatality of the disease was exacerbated by the famine. Not to extend this much further, but I also pointed out that using population numbers to deny genocide is a classic Neo-Nazi tactic, and this idiotic motherfucker had the nerve to claim that as an anti-fascist he studied Neo-Nazi denial tactics extensively and had never heard of the population numbers being used as a denial tactic. That's the level of expertise you have on your ranks. Half of you people are clowns who think they're hot shit because you read a couple of books written by your people. I'm no historian. I'm not an expert at anything. I'm a dumb motherfucker. And yet I don't fall for your tricks. I don't care what Jimmy reads, he can read whatever he wants.
    2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289.  @pyotrkropotkin406  "You tried to make it sound like they were outside the Canadian system" - but they were. The clinic sees patients through the Canadian system (they are contracted by the government to see those patients) and by themselves as a private entity. Rand didn't sneak into the backdoor into the Canadian system. "I'm telling you that is how their system works" - but how the system works in irrelevant because Rand was never admitted through that system. "This clinic is not outside their socialized medical system" - oh my god, yes it is. So because Boeing is contracted by the US DoD to make airframes and wings for aging military aircraft, if I want to start an airliner and try to buy a 737 MAX (lol) am I going through the Department of Defense system? If a construction company is contracted by the government to build roads, hospitals, schools, etc and I contract that same company to make me a house, am I getting the house through the public system? This is starting to sound like the "you didn't build that!" type of argument regarding private businesses. So they're private, but because government exists, they're not really private. What the fuck? "Canadians get to use their clinic for free just like everything else there." - yeah. Because the PRIVATE clinic has a deal with the government where they send the bill to the government and get a huge fucking payday in exchange for seeing patients from the public system. It's good for the private business because they get a bunch of guaranteed income for the year and it's good for the state because they get a bulk discount. It's still a private clinic and Rand paid for his shit. Goddamn.
    1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294.  @pyotrkropotkin406  "they are apart of the public system of healthcare in Canada." - when a construction company is contracted to build roads, schools, courthouses, etc are they part of the public system? Answer the question. "I'm telling you that they are still part of. the public healthcare system. Something you keep trying to deny" - if they are privately owned, and they get contracted by the government to perform services, how does that make them part of the public system? Is Lockheed-Martin a public company? Raytheon? They are paid by governments to make weapons. Pretty much all their sales are to governments. Does that make them public or private? Answer the question so we can expose your double-standards. "think that their privately owned status is unusual in the Canadian system" - I never said anything was usual or unusual. Stop lying. "yet it is still classed as a public system due to how they receive most of their money" - Again, the Military Industrial Complex makes most of its money through government sales. That's where they get most of their money. Does that make them public? It's not uncommon for government buildings to have private security, a service purchased from private companies. Does that mean private security companies are public? Governments often contract certain services such as garbage collection and waste disposal to private companies, does that make them public? "In England" - nobody gives a fuck about England, I didn't say anything about England and this isn't about England. Stop bringing up red herrings. You have still not provided evidence that Rand Paul did not pay anything for the service and his treatment was paid by the Canadian taxpayer. Are you still insisting on your lie?
    1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367.  @Supernautiloid  "Not all forms of force are unjust or immoral" - Then why is it moral to use force against American citizens but not China? "ALL laws are forms of individual punishment" - When someone commits murder do we all go to jail? No. They're not collective punishment, by default making them individual punishment. "it's own citizens following it's own laws" - You and I don't pick the laws. Don't give me that crap. Do we want to go down this road and start finding which laws you don't like? Because I'll have you say you love authoritarian force being used against people that don't deserve it. "I am AGAINST using force to compel OTHER countries to follow the agreement since we have no right to dictate what other countries do" - And you don't have the right to dictate to me what to do either. That's beside the point, but I'm glad you're leaving that out in the open. Oh look at me, I'm so moral because arbitrary lines drawn in a map stop me from using force against others, but I'll use force on my own people. Jesus, read your own posts. Either way, the accords are essentially undemocratic. We didn't vote on the content of those accords. Don't even try to BS me. It's not your law, it's not my law. It's not ours. It's an international agreement, done by a select few elites out of each country. Should we comb through the list of international agreements until we find one you don't agree with? Because I'll force you to say you love it. You tell me the muddy water is coffee, I will have to see you drink it. Without making a funny face.
    1
  368.  @Supernautiloid  Jesus Christ you people love making discussions harder to respond to. You didn't explain anything and in fact just contradicted yourself. You can't control me in my own home? Then exit the Paris accords. It makes no sense to argue that you can't control other people, but then defend an international agreement. The accords will punish people individually because states will have to create laws to deal with people preventing the goals from being met. And individuals do get punished through collective punishment. If an entire class is held in a classroom during recess as a form of collective punishment, the individual student is still being punished. You've just exposed yourself as someone willing to be obtuse and then end up being wrong anyway. Well done. Okay. Name the laws that go against your moral compass. Oh, so I have the right to vote against your personal liberties? You're just defending a system that chips away at our personal liberties. The contents of the Paris accords were not voted on by the people. People could have voted for Biden for a myriad reasons that were unrelated to the Paris accords but that's lumped into the deal anyway. Okay. Then start. Find out what? Your logic is that the Paris accords are righteous because they were voted on. My challenge is to have you name all the international agreements you don't like, and you come here to talk about them but you're forced to say it's okay for authoritarian force to be used against the people.
    1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389.  @coolioso808  "You have an unfortunately flawed understanding of how science and mathematics work. A resource-based economy that is monitored and informed by science" - Buddy, archeologists and biologists have been fooled by fossils because they couldn't tell which side of the animal had legs and which side had spikes on the vertebrae. Science is a process of elimination, and it can be wrong because we drove ourselves into being wrong through false assumptions. "would not be present because the incentives are different" - Nonsense. The incentives are always present. "In a resource-based economy, it is designed to meet all people's needs first and foremost without labor-for-income or slavery." - This is a huge contradiction. If people's needs are met without the requirement of labor, where do the resources come from? Hence you inevitably will need to impose slavery to keep the machine ticking. "you think it would kill millions of people when the expressed purpose is to provide all humans with basic needs" - Because it has been tried. The use of force to keep the system in charge killed millions. The ignorance of the central planners left many without resources and killed million. "Let's use the proven scientific process to figure it out." - This is a joke, right? The scientific process created stuff that doesn't work. The scientific process created stuff that ended up being harmful. You somehow think that science's sh!t don't stink and that no mistakes are made. The process is proven. The results aren't. "yes, of course, in a resource-based economy some mistakes will be made" - And like Lord Farquaard from Shrek said, some of you may die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. "no NEED for politicians" - Hold on. So who gets to be in charge of resources? Who enforces is?
    1
  390. 1
  391.  @coolioso808  "Of course science is a process. That's why I literally said, we should use the "scientific process" for resource management." - So your process will be wrong and inevitably proven wrong. Thanks for admitting it. "Sure incentives are always present." - Thanks for admitting it. "what would be the incentive" - Clearly you don't understand humans. Tons of crime is committed without the purpose of meeting any needs. "I just suggest it is not a requirement of living" - And like Bill DeBlasio said the voluntary period has expired. It starts with a suggestion, then it becomes mandatory. "Who is in charge of the resources? Basically Mother Nature. As she has always been." - So you have no enforcement and everything's ripe for the taking. I give it two weeks before everything's on fire. "which removes most of the corrupting factors" - This has to be a joke. "public database that then uses scientific and mathematical algorithms (not rocket science) to determine what resources to best use" - Tell me you don't understand science and algorithms without telling me you don't understand science and algorithms. Are you out of your mind? "You and I could access this just like we go onto an online custom T-shirt store and browse for options" - But the t-shirt store charges money. They handle their resources by getting our resources in exchange. If nobody was paying and just putting orders the shop would have no idea how to prioritize the resources. "defeatist attitude" - And you have a la-la-la-land attitude. Who's going to solve things? Science! Who's going to make decisions? Computers! It's just like an online store.
    1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490.  @justinshin2279  "I am engaging in risky behaviors" - Not taking a shot is not risky. Look up the long term survival rates for myocarditis. "If it means requiring either vaccination or more frequent testing, I am okay with it."/" If it means forcing everyone to get vaccinated against their will, I oppose it strongly" - The hell is this wishy-washy bs? You're okay with "requiring" it but not people being forcibly jabbed? What's the difference? The former is insidiously evil, the latter is cartoonishly evil. At least being cartoonishly evil will set off the alarms and get people to start fighting, when it's insidious people at the top can treat you like cattle with a smile, the police will say "hey I'm just doing my job", and if you do anything about it you'll be called crazy. "I can tell you that businesses are not generally enforcing the mandate" - But saying the law doesn't matter because everyone is ignoring it is not enough. The actual text of the law needs to be erased and the people responsible for it need to face consequences for governmental overreach. "It's performative" - Don't care. Punitive action is necessary for even trying. Treating overreach with kid gloves because it resulted in "lol jk!" just opens the door for real overreach that won't be fought because people are already pacified by all the times it didn't amount to anything and there was no need to fight back. "when there is a public safety concern" - There's always a public safety concern. "many gun ranges go out of their way to do more than the standard check" - The hell does that mean? The gun store either performs the NICS check or the state-specific variant they're mandated to perform by state legislature. There's no way to do "more" than the standard, and the standard is all there is. With a few states having standards different from the federal one. "But the range could be liable if it was determined they did not take obvious steps to ensure dangerous people did not fire weapons at the range." - I don't know why I have to explain this, but comparing high velocity metal to a bug most people don't know they have it unless tested is simply not sane.
    1
  491.  @justinshin2279  1. Meanwhile in the real world, cardiac complications nearly doubled in Israel compared to the 2019-2020 average, due to a mass campaign that was not worth the trouble because it affected people who were not likely to get complications from the disease. 2. You're being wishy-washy, not pragmatic. There is no nuance in using unchecked corporate power to sidestep the issue of unchecked government power. Privatizing the means of control is not pragmatism. It's a fundamentally anti-human stance and you need to own up to it. 3. I am entitled to say that the people responsible for restrictive regulations need to suffer punitive action. If I screw up on my job, I can get fired. I care about what's happening in the real world - real politicians are using real political power irresponsibly and you're saying it's not really happening because people this time have chosen not to comply. Even though at least 60% are complying, but that's just a tiny little detail. Do you have a single argument that isn't running interference for these people? 4. That's whataboutism. For twenty years I've spoken against a multitude of issues and you don't get to shame me just because you're Johnny come lately and didn't see me do it. Meanwhile, you have a paradigm shift that's going to affect regular people even more than the War on Terror did, and your concern is "dude weed lmao". We already congratulated drugs for winning the war on drugs. You say things aren't an issue if people don't comply, seems to me drug laws are something people have no issue with non-compliance so I don't need to press that further. This is going to affect even more people than the war on drugs, essentially unpersoning them without trial or conviction. If you thought plea deals were rough, that is worse. 5. Florida is a partial point of contact state where FDLE is responsible for the check even though they use the FBI NICS system. From what I understand other states can place a NICS flag on you, and FDLE cannot do anything about it so there's non-prohibited persons failing checks in Florida. Your acquaintance may need to check the conditions for his discharge, what state it happened in, etc to get it cleared out.
    1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495.  @BlakeBigfoot  "that's a fallacy." - were you going to elaborate or do you just shout fallacy whenever you hear a different opinion? "People on the right are FAR more pro-censorship than ANY leftist" - my dude I'm not the kind of idiot who ask for sources for things that can't be proven by any reasonable metric but the claim that the left is not pro censorship is going to need some serious fucking citations behind it. I've had this discussion multiple times and the left essentially argues that to uphold leftist values reactionary speech has to be curtailed. You're just going to do the "not real leftists" thing and weasel away. I get this same shit on the guns and "personal vs private property" debates, from my own sampling done both in real life and on the internet leftists in general and even anarchist-left people are very anti-gun because widespread gun ownership would allow reactionary action. I don't even know how would a stateless society enforce gun control, but it puts a smile on my face whenever the "but muh real leftists are pro gun" people show up to the comments section. "Just because they toot the "anti-censorship" horn doesn't mean their actual beliefs and actions line up" - wow if you want to line up beliefs and actions the left has absolutely no ground to stand on considering almost every system started by the left ended up as "MUH NOT REAL SOCIALISM". "it usually is an indicator of someone who doesn't even know what censorship is. " - oh wow now I'm fucking interested, I wanna hear your definition of censorship.
    1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512.  @pdpgb  Nah, there were lines for high-demand goods even if you could afford it. We associate the bread line with extreme poverty but the reason the expression caught on and became culturally relevant was because there were queue lines even during the good times. When Mikhail Gorbachev wanted to curb alcoholism the state put restrictions on sale of hard liquor and the time of day you could purchase it so lines formed for alcohol as well, not just food. Waiting in line happened even for books. Lines formed at the stores because the government fixed the prices (hiding inflation). People who produced food independently were able to sell it at local markets but there the prices were higher due to inflation, so it was always preferable to get your groceries at the store with regulated prices. Even during the good times, when there's no famine at all, it was preferable to take your chance at waiting in line as you'd spend less money on food and this normalized a behavior that you'd only see in times of crisis. The poor allocation of resources causing some areas to have extra stock while others had shortages, plus corruption at the distributor level diverting products towards the "grey market", had the compounding effect of people travelling farther to go to stores. This "extends" the cultural memory of standing in line for food because it happened even when people weren't facing extreme poverty. "But I don't see any problem with the concept in general. Sure it's better if they don't have to wait in line too long but we're giving food to hungry people." - The problem isn't "you have to wait for food". That's not the critique. It's how poorly managed production was in the Soviet Union. It's not a bad thing to have charity in times of hardship, the problem is when the hardship was caused by the state's own incompetence and now your survival depends on charity.
    1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536.  @memg5742  If you don't hate police, you're not paying attention. It wasn't an assault rifle. If you want to use specifics for shock value, I'm going to nitpick the specifics. An assault rifle is an intermediate caliber rife with a detachable magazine that can switch between semi-automatic and automatic fire modes. Since the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (signed into law by Reagan, no less) that automatic weapons cannot be purchased by civilians. If Kyle couldn't have an automatic weapon, he didn't have an assault rifle. Don't want me to beat you over the head with details about guns? Don't open the door to scrutiny. Vigilantism: "Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong" - a protection service isn't vigilantism. A security guard is not law enforcement. Kyle was not taking the law into his own hands as he was not arresting or issuing citations. He wasn't attempting to effect justice as he was not doing anything other than putting out fires and scrubbing graffiti. That's not "justice". It's not LE's job to protect people and property. Supreme Court already ruled that they have no duty to protect. Protesters that didn't attack people were not shot. So how is that related? "Kyle showing up with an AR-15 style weapon (that’s not an assault rifle? what are you calling it?)" - As seen above, assault rifle is a specific category of weapon. Don't get surprised and ask if that's not an assault rifle. Ask yourself who told you about the term "assault rifle" and what you were told it was. "assault rifle-style weapon" - Now it's your turn. In detail, explain to me what assault style rifle even is. And what you're trying to say. Don't give me the buzzword, just spell it out what you think is wrong about the AR and it being used.
    1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557.  Eastern fence Lizard  "The rich people who have done this to us have personal chefs and people to grocery shop for them" - This is a massive cope. If it took chefs and assistants to be healthy, then obesity rates would be 99%. Clearly, there's plenty of people who can cook and shop no matter the income level. Trump has been out of office for almost a year and you're still letting him live rent free in your head. There's so many out of shape rich people it actually debunks your argument. "almost no one succeeds long term" - Doesn't need to be long term, only until the coof is finally endemic and becomes the common cold. "Expecting this to change overnight and somehow have foreknowledge of the pandemic in order to address it before it hits is not at all reasonable." - We had foreknowledge. You people called us racist conspiracy theorists for saying something was happening in Wuhan. Either way, if a disease threatens you with death and you can't change overnight... again that seems like a personal problem. Why should I suffer? "Losing weight and keeping it off basically means changing everything about being an American" - No, it doesn't. "Do you really think people are going to just stop eating foods they have been eating all their lives, to stop playing addictive video games or binge watching Netflix?" - Excuses. You can do that and still not put on weight. It's called moderation. It's called not overeating. Listen to yourself. So if danger of lung cancer is looming, you're really going to argue you're not going to stop smoking because you've been doing it all your life?
    1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564.  @yarnpower  "Tax cuts meant less income for the federal govt." - but that's false. Tax revenue actually increased. In 1980 receipts were 517k Million dollars, 1981-599k M, 1982-617k M, 1983-600k M, 1984-666k M, 1985-734k M, 1986-769k M, 1987-854k M, 1988-909k M. The income actually grew, in fact almost doubled. "so they in turn had less to send back to each state" - not only is the premise that the government was taking less tax income false, but even if that was true that doesn't cause tuition to rise. States could easily bump sales, property or income tax. I want some documentation proving that state governments all together decided to increase tuition as a tax collection scheme because there have to be meetings on record and bills passed that put this theory on paper. "Private colleges then felt free to raise their rates." - that doesn't even make sense. If state college becomes more expensive for factors unrelated to private schools then they get a boost in enrollment. That could explain a slight increase in tuition costs simply because demand is higher than the supply - more students trying to join than a college can accommodate - but it wouldn't explain a 1000 percent increase over the last few decades. Are the states still trying to cover up a budget hole after all these years? Please come to your senses. Are private colleges still in a race to the top with states trying to raise an infinite amount of taxes by bumping tuition costs? Or does the existence of laws that make banks profit off excessive loans create a spike in demand that allows the supply side to keep increasing prices?
    1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571.  @mikemurray2027  But they'd be better paid and have better care in other countries. What does it matter if the US has the wealth if they are not going to get a cut of it? If you were Iraqi, would you seriously think "yes Americans killed my family and destroyed my home, I will move there and work for under minimum wage and no healthcare because that's where the wealth is". Do you think this makes any sense at all? "you can't deny that there is US aggression against the countries these poor people are fleeing from, nor can you deny they are fleeing." - Weird way to frame the discussion. Of course I can't deny it, I'm also against US imperialism and foreign intervention. That doesn't mean I can't question the logic I'm being fed, especially when it suspiciously lines in with establishment talking points. "If you maintain they are coming to the promised land of the USA" - Why is it a promised land? "why then are they fleeing other capitalist countries that are allies of the USA" - Don't see how this makes the US a people magnet. "whose leaders have been installed by the USA" - Still don't see how this attracts people. "whose economic and social policies have been forced on them by the USA" - Still not seeing how this attracts people. "with bombs, terrorism, death squads, genocide, assassination, etc etc?" - THIS SHOULD SEND PEOPLE RUNNING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. Again, I am against all of those things. You don't need to pitch this idea to me. All I'm asking is, can you explain why people who by all accounts should hate the US, and will live very poor lives in the US, decide to move to the US? Because none of what you said actually answers the question. If China destroyed my home, why would I move to China? If my government was a China puppet, why would I move to China? If my home country was an ally with China, why would that make me want to move to China?
    1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584.  @radiotec76  "So you would like to pay a liveable wage if it weren't for inflation." - you need to speak in terms that make sense. A person gets hired to perform work that adds to the profits. If the wages paid to the person surpass the extra earnings created by that labour, it stops making sense to keep the person around. This has zero to do with livable wages. "Price hikes on key items like gasoline have a knock on effect with others or would you just keep you prices where they are at and loose money?" - and if the cost of energy increases then that means the costs of many goods will increase because fuel is used to power machines and to transport said goods. A price hike on gasoline can take a huge hit on the economy. "No, you'd raise prices on what you're selling. If prices of things go up why not people's labor?" - and that's what I am trying to explain. If prices raise on what you are selling the economy will slow down. "If you have to pay your workers a wage so low they have to take a second or even third job just to pay the basics" - what if they don't have to? Maybe they have another income at home from a husband/wife. Maybe they live with their parents. Maybe they live with other 3 people sharing a cheap house. Maybe the government should take action against inflation to make sure the cost of living falls in relation to wages. "then it's already failed and shouldn't exist." - which doesn't make any fucking sense. If hiring an extra person generates (say) 15 dollars an hour to my business and I have to pay 15 dollars an hour for that labour, I get 0. That doesn't mean my business is failing. It just means that it makes zero sense to add a cost to my business that brings no return. "It's strange your even debating this" - how is it strange? It's fucking maths. If I look at the cost of hiring someone and the theoretical revenue I can get, and I realize it's a bad decision to hire someone that job position is eliminated. "And finally do you really want to pay workers so little" - bro if you could make me 300 dollars an hour I'd certainly pay you 200. But if you only generate 15 dollars/hour I can't give you more than 10. I am always astonished at the divide, of course there's asshole bosses everywhere but straight up assuming that if I were a boss the wages I would be paying would be too low on purpose?
    1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. "When you're less likely to be infected, less likely to have a high virus load, and clear the virus faster, that means you're less likely to infect others." - But you're still infectious, meaning that all you're doing is delaying the inevitable. "Only the delta variant" - And we have incoming variants that are also resistant. That's the evolutionary pressure. If anything, the unvaccinated are keeping the non-resistant strains alive. "This is typical of none of the dozens or hundreds of daily contacts people have." - This seems like more of a critique of the lockdowns than anything else. If the people who are in close contact and then have hundreds of daily contacts are not the issue, then the lockdowns were a crime against humanity. "Households with vaccinated people who never caught the virus are omitted." - What would be the point of including them? To measure effectiveness you have to narrow down on the ones who were exposed. That's how the trial of the shots was done. Not focusing on the 43k people who never got infected. But the 177 unvaccinated who got sick and the 8 vaccinated that got sick. Those who got exposed? They don't matter. Can't measure effectiveness without putting the stuff through the paces. "the less the strain on health services" - They're strained not by being overwhelmed, but due to continuous pressure. There's staff shortages, people quitting. "Subsequent variations are expected to be less lethal; it's better to be infected later than sooner." - So we should have locked down the vulnerable and let it burn through the healthy to generate the less lethal variants? We instead let it burn through the elderly and then the less lethal variants spread to the healthy. Great job. We did it. "Medications and treatment protocols are being improved and developed; again, later, rather than sooner." - They were known pretty soon. We know exactly the mechanism that is killing people. But if you treat them... there goes the emergency use authorization. "There's even a new generation of vaccines coming, which will, hopefully, provide even better protection" - Don't hold your breath. It's a money making racket and they're dishing out a third shot of an outdated variant. This is an instance where we can't help but talk past each other. All you're saying is technically correct. And I believe it's absolutely worthless. Oh, this only applies to Delta? Tough titties, the shot is made for the 2019 Wuhan strain, a two year old strain. There's more variants coming and they're also under evolutionary pressure to infect the vaccinated. If daily outside contacts don't matter, then there's no public service being done. Sorry to be an asshole about it. I'm not questioning the things you're saying, which are probably all true. But there's logical reasons why those things are absolutely worthless to me and many others. I'm happy to see you're also against mandates. I simply think the corruption goes to the top and there's no "actual" benevolent way to implement the measures they want. I think their measures actually made things worse and they killed people for money.
    1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623.  @PunkOnARant  "I mean you could call WATER an "experimental substance"" - Water has existed in the universe for billions of years and it's the basis of life. "some guy on the internet says "we are being lied to"?" - You can just look at the numbers. The number of cases we're seeing in many countries make it mathematically impossible for the unvaccinated to be the ones getting infected. "i would assume that your politicans with staff are being closely monitored in regards to covid, probably tested very often for it" - That's not an excuse. "Usually a vaccine mandate only means that people who attend different things, such as concerts." - Then you are wrong. The US president issued a mandate that essentially forces all workers in companies with more than 100 workers to get it. "A vaccine mandate only means that us who choose to be vaccinated would get to do things such as go to concerts, and you who choose not to would not." - That right there says why it's a bad idea, you want a two-tier society. "By being against a vaccine mandate for things like concerts, you're actively opposing my freedom." - BS. The vaccinated can still spread. So when you attend your concert, you're exposed to untested vaccinated people. "For why should I not be able to do things i want because YOU choose not to be vaccinated?" - The other way around. Why should you be allowed to say who has freedom? Why should be be able to spread the disease to others by presenting a card? "So a vaccine mandate is good because it allows freedom" - IT DENIES FREEDOM. This is blatant 1984 newspeak. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Papers please is freedom. "and why your politicians and their staffs probably dont require vaccinations." - That doesn't even explain it. You're just saying you justified it without justifying it!
    1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1