Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "The Rational National" channel.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7.  @AlanDantes76  yea, he got it from his friend who lives in WI and bought it in WI, so anyone doing any news coverage should be doing due diligence and researching it. i heard people say that he did transport it across state lines and i heard people that said he did not transport it across state lines, so with 2 differing viewpoints and an absence of any charges to the transporting of firearms across state lines i decided to do my own research, and google came up with a link to an NPR article within 0.016 seconds, top of the search list. so i read the NPR article, which literally said that the IL state police declined to file any charges because in the course of their investigation they concluded that the weapon was bought, stored, and used exclusively in WI and has never been brought to IL, according to the IL state police statement. so at that point i figured ok, NPR quoted an actual police department that did an actual criminal investigation. another funny thing that made me question the whole transporting weapons across state lines was, why was Rittenhous's friend who lives in WI charged with gun charges related to this case. people dont do enough research, they listen to pundits who have an agenda, and they are twisted into wanting revenge and thinking it is justice. the same people who will claim that Zimmerman was wrong for stalking and attacking Trevon even though he perceived him as a threat are the same people that think it was perfectly OK for Rosenbaum to stalk and attack Rittenhouse because he viewed him as a threat. i believe that NO ONE is allowed to stalk and attack anyone else, stalking is a crime, at least here in Chicago, so is physically attacking someone, so is threatening to kill someone.
    2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17.  @sebastianlavallee706  and thats where your argument falls apart, because YOU are full of bullshit and dont care about justice. i made the claim that the judge is being consistent because he CONSISTELY rules in his cases against the use of the word "victim". that is a ruling he consistently uses. do you know what the word consistent means? if he has used that ruling on multiple other cases then he is being consistent with using that ruling. as for them being referred to by criminal terms, why shouldnt they be? they acted criminally by atacking Ritenhouse in the first place resulting in them getting shot. they acted in a criminal manner by associating with rioters and looters and arsonists during a riot where rioting and looting and arson was being commited. doesnt matter if you convict them of it or not, they were in the process of doing it. same way if a guy is stabbing a person and you shoot them you say you killed a murderer even though you didnt convict him of murder. whats pure bullshit is that you are trying to defend pedophiles and claim they are victims which would indicate they are completely innocent of anything when in fact EVERY single one of them was shot WHILE they were attacking Rittenhouse, all the videos from every angle we have seen so far show that is the case. if you call them victims that would imply that Rittenhouse took aim and shot them for absolutely no reason while they were standing on the sidewalk minding their own business, which is not the case. and if Rittenhouse's actions pre or post event can very much be relevant to the case than so can the guys who got shot, including his convicion as a PEDO is is a pre event to the event of the shooting. funny how in the same sentence you can claim that ALL the actions of one person must be scrutinized but NONE of the actions of another person should be, that is bias. it is YOU who is not out for justice, you simply want to run around committing crimes and attacking people and loot and burn things down with impunity where no one is allowed to defend themselves. i would tell you to get off the internet but its already too late, you are a maniac. you find yourself in the peculiar position of defending a PEDO who attacked someone for no reasonand got shot for doing it. wonder how defensive you would be of someone who attacked your child and then claimed they were the victim after you stopped them.
    2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28.  @cliffgaither  if a company unionizes, then that union will be asking for higher wages and more benefits, which will raise costs. im not saying they dont deserve it or they dont need it, of course they should get it and of course they deserve it and of course they need it.but dont tell me that it wont affect prices because the owners can do this or they can do that, what the owners can do and what owners have historically done are two different things. secondlu, we are not talking about what Bezos has access to, we are talking about his salary, which is not much. the rest of his fortune is tied in stocks, and while yes, certainly he has access to a vast fortune, that would entail him selling those stocks, and too much sales of stocks can have drastic effects on the company as a whole in various complicated ways. as an example, a too dramatic dip in share price of a company could jeapordize their ability to get standard operational loans, called a credit freeze. a large part of the 08-09 crisis was caused by a credit freeze from banks to most companies because most companies opperate on daily or weekly short term operational loans. thats just an example. thirdly yes, if workers are treated well, then there is no need for a strike, but there are instances of where workers are treated well and the union still goes on strike because they want concessions that are either unreasonable or unatainable. i have seen it happen before, i was in the teamsters union. what happens if a union decides they are worth $30 or $50 an hour, and the company simply can not afford it and the union goes on strike because they want it. does that mean the workers were treated bad or does it mean that they wanted unrealistic items that were unnatainable? give the workers everything they want and it wont matter how much the owners give up, it wont be enough to cover what the workers get and eventually prices will have to rise. im not against unionizing, but i also lok at all the aspects from every side.
    2
  29. 2
  30.  @cliffgaither  i agree, but you have to be able to look at both sides of a problem to find the solution. if a pipe breaks in your house, to dont replace all the pipes because the pipe is evil, you figure out why that particular pipe broke and fix it and examine all the other pipes. if a plane crashes, you dont throw out all other planes, you examine why it crashed, and should you fix other planes, do they even share a common failing part. this problem is more complex than a simple broken pipe or a crashed plane, and it requires a more complex examination across all businesses and complex solutions tailored to various industries as they are not all the same. Andrew yang had a wonderful idea during his campaign, taxing companies for robot workers in large amounts to offset the human workers that would lose their jobs to the robots and automation, and use that money to subsidize or give a universal income to those people affected by automation. i say its a wonderful idea because it identified a problem and tailored a solution that fit that exact problem without affecting other industries that didnt have that problem. for example. i have always worked my entire life, ive worked regular blue collar jobs such as warehousing or factory or regular office jobs, i was never a CEO or even management, i simply didnt want that responsibility. and i did own my own company for a short time with no employees. the thing is, i have amassed a decent fortune by simply investing the little scraps of money i had left over. most of my money was made in a very early investment in bitcoin, although i sold it all a while ago, im not a filthy rich multimillionaire. would you praise me that i was able to rise up and better my life? or would you just simply look at me and relegate yourself to the belief that i am evil because i have tons of wealth and it must have been gained through nefarious deeds while standing on the backs of impoverished workers? i was one of those impoverished workers, and i rose above my station by taking risks, ha, if you can call them risks, $10 bucks once in a while is laughable as a risk. but still, i took some risks simply because i paid attention to fringe news. CHIA NETWORK, thats your free tip, check it out.
    2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2