Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Fisherman Drops Truth On CNN About Biden u0026 Stimulus" video.

Remember when for a hot minute some people started saying they didn't trust the vaccine because it was conceived during Trump's term?
12
@dylanlinzer6734 How is it full blown r-word? Child labor laws were introduced when only 3% of children were working. They essentially banned the practice after almost nobody was making money off it, it's like bragging Hillary Clinton supported gay marriage - they only voiced their support when they were sure that was popular enough not to cost them anything. That's also not the point. This was about people worshipping smooth talking politicians. You'll nod in agreement when all you have is the speech written by writers who make a living out of preparing agreeable speeches. If you knew the FDR's National Recovery Administration was filled to the brim with corporate leaders and that he and his "experts" were destroying food to make sure prices stayed high you wouldn't nod in agreement. I don't care if you like FDR or not, nor am I trying to change your mind on FDR. I'm just saying you wouldn't nod in agreement to a speech. Just like you're probably not worshipping Biden right now. You aren't, are you? Then you already agree with what I wanted to say. That's all.
2
@Supernautiloid I think it's a little disingenuous to claim foreign countries are sovereign but then say the US needs to go back to the Paris accords.
1
@Supernautiloid There is an inconsistency. You can't say the US should abide by international accords but then say China has the right to not enter them. It's still better than saying that genocide is okay because they have a different culture, but only barely.
1
@Supernautiloid You can't use authoritarian force to compel me to obey international accords, then. I'm clearly making a reference to Biden's answer. I'm going to be generous and assume you're just gaming this discussion, rather than actually being that ignorant.
1
@Supernautiloid If the US has to obey international accords, then so do its people.
1
@Supernautiloid So that a country can obey an international accord, the country passes laws that control behavior of the collective. And the individual is punished. I can't believe I have to explain this.
1
@Supernautiloid You said authoritarian force is wrong. The question you've asked is useless, because no matter my answer the law is enforced through authoritarian force. So why should the US follow the Paris Accords if you're against actually enforcing the damn thing?
1
@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
@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
@mikemorrison270 don't ask questions, just take vaccine and get excited for ext vaccine
1
@mikemurray2027 you're going to explain to me how people fleeing US aggression flee to the US rather than literally anywhere else
1
@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
@mikemurray2027 Can you stop posting multiple replies? You have time to structure your argument, just add them all up and hit post. Shotgunning doesn't earn you points. - I simply asked a question and you're not answering. The US isn't bombing 90% of the countries in the world. The US isn't bombing the UK. Or France. Or Germany. Italy. Norway. Or even China or Russia. - Can you stop gloating about what's not being contested? Yes, it's not being contested because that's not what being argued. Again, all those things make the US an awful pick. Find peace in the US? Why not pick a country with less gun crime, then? Why not Canada? The US isn't bombing Canada. - You're still not answering the question. I'm not bothering you. I'm just exposing the fact that you can't answer a question. You've been fed establishment talking points and repeating them. When actually asked to explain those talking points, you tap out. You're dismissed.
1
Because back then people didn't know FDR and his lackeys thought destroying food and paying farmers to not produce would alleviate poverty.
1
@dylanlinzer6734 Don't turn this on me, bub. If you ban child labor after it's already on decline you're not a hero. And I'm not a bad guy for pointing it out. "Ohhhhh noooo this means you're okay with child labor" go bother someone else. You're only resorting to this tactic because I touched a nerve. Let me be clear: it's extremely likely that most of your heroes were absolute POS'es. If you go through life accepting that maybe mainstream narratives stem from historian bias and/or cults of personality, it's not gonna hurt as much when you're confronted with who they really were. And you won't have to shoot the messenger.
1