Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. +killercaos123 "What about radio? the internet?" Not as monolithic in outlook as TV and movies, and thanks for asking!
    1
  2. +David Roldan The legal framework of net neutrality legislation allowed the FCC to regulate content in the manner of the old "fairness doctrine". That is the really fearsome prospect, the government effectively censoring the Internet for free. There is a great deal more political money in play on the left than the right. When is the last time the Republican presidential campaign outspent the Democrat presidential campaign? Look it up. All that money is outweighed by the profits the providers get for giving their customers the whole Internet. If the Republicans owned the whole Internet, it would only partly compensate for the Democrat control of movies and TV. "Censoring a different ideology Reminds me of communism" By this standard, Google and You Tube are communist, and they censor the right, not the left. Censoring a different ideology is something the Republicans and conservatives are not doing, have never proposed doing, and the left does every time they get the power (Hollywood, academe, public broadcasting, Google, etc.) The right get called unfair every time they express their opinion or make an argument. Having your say is not the same as shutting the other guy up.
    1
  3. I confront you with facts and you call me names. I never said that Republicans wouldn't promote their views. I said that they would not try to silence the opposition, like your side does. And you don't have an answer to this. Are you trying to claim that J. Edgar Hoover tried to silence those he disagreed with? And TV is not balanced, or even anywhere close. If you want documentation of this, read Shapiro's book. "Just look harder." And don't stop looking until I agree with you eh?
    1
  4. +David Roldan "for life!" So you're pro-life!
    1
  5. +Franco Vasquez " If we make these guns as illegal as grenades, then no one, even terrorists, will be able to get access to any." If making a substance illegal makes it disappear, why can I buy cocaine (imported substance made from an extract of a plan that won't grow in the US) off the street? "Making these types of guns illegal means that there won’t be any suppliers around (since no one is allowed to buy it)" Fully automatic machine pistols are illegal almost everywhere in US and bordering countries. Most gun murders in the US are committed with fully automatic machine pistols. Both of your arguments, fallacious on the face, are contradicted by experiment.
    1
  6. Wars and all, defense is not a majority of the budget, despite being essentially the only thing the government is legitimately supposed to do.
    1
  7. +Dan Williams "The things that the Republicans used to want are now the things that the Democrats want and the things Democrats used to want are now the things Republicans want." Name one. +The Almighty Jod "the Tea Party Movement which pulled the Republicans far enough to the right and up (authoritarianism)" The Tea Party is against authoritarianism, the left is for it. +travincal1 "The "ethnonationalists" of the world associate themselves with the political RIGHT." So when Joseph Stalin actually murders millions and associates himself with the LEFT, does that discredit YOU? +Micheal Manshiem "1800's Democrats conservatives are the TODAY'S Republicans conservatives. Republicans progressives (Party of Abraham Lincoln) are the TODAY'S Democrats progressives." Wow! So much equivocation in one sentence. To disentangle this Gordian logic knot we need to define some terms: 1. Conservative. Whether conservatism is good or bad depends on what one is trying to conserve. Today the term "conservative" is used for those who wish to conserve the enumerated freedoms of the Constitution and limited government. 2. Progressive. The term progressive began to be used politically in the early 20th century. Etymologically, it ought to mean being in favor of human progress, but it was first used by the Democrats in the Jim Crow days. It meant Socialism, Eugenics, and Jim Crow laws. Woodrow Wilson was a "progressive", on his watch the first film shown in the White House was the KKK promoting film "Birth of a Nation". He is credited with revitalizing the KKK as the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. FDR was a progressive, he and Mussolini publicly admired one another, and he agreed to block anti-lynching federal legislation in exchange for southern congressmen's votes for the New Deal. Democrat support for eugenics has been swept under the historical rug since "nazis gave eugenics a bad name." It was all the rage in the first third of the 20th century, all "evolutionary" and "scientific". Margaret Sanger was a prominent eugenicist, who leaves as her legacy the organization she founded, Planned Parenthood. In this context "progressive" is understood as not an opposite to "conservative" but to what was then called "liberal" and is now called "libertarian" So modern Democrat policies can be understood as "progressive" in the historical sense. As such, they are the modern manifestation and continuation of historical Democrat authoritarian policies. Republican policies can be understood as more "libertarian", on the whole, than Democrat policies. The continued and unaltered theme is "freedom and equality under the law", a continuation of the policies of Lincoln. +Travis Himebaugh David Duke choosing to call himself Republican may be evidence that he believed in the "switch". It is not evidence that it is true.
    1
  8. Among the elites, "racist" has become a dog whistle for what is, in their minds, what used to be called a firm class distinction. What they MEAN is "We anointed are the nobles, and those people are the smelly peasants."
    1
  9. Relevant to the premise only if muslims are bulletproof
    1
  10. +Bad MF " what if in the future CEOs and other rich people earned 1000000x the average worker? They have so much wealth that they could easily pay everyone on the planet enough to live comfortably and still have more money than they could spend in 1000 lifetimes," moral so far. "but they choose not to." Now there is a separate question, and it's answer is not so simple. I am a Christian, and Jesus taught us that charitable contributions are to be done by those who have somewhat to give (and demographics show that we do, evangelicals, Bible thumping red state Republicans that we are, give more as a percentage of their income than other groups). So charity is an obligation for the wealthy Christian, OWED TO GOD. This is not the same as poor folk DESERVING MORE. Since ours is a secular society and not a theocracy, there is no ground for me to try to make this practice obligatory on non-Christians, and, of course, the attempt destroys capitalism and makes the poor poorer. We, as a society, might legitimately pursue as a goal lifting the living standards of the poor, particularly when those standards stunt the health and opportunities of the poor. There can be no legitimate social interest in limiting the living standards of the rich, as such, IN PRINCIPLE, to clarify: NO MATTER HOW RICH THEY GET.
    1
  11.  @chaddisrud535  "He sent troops loyal to the USA federal government to fort Sumter which is located in the CSA." This is a lie. He had an agreement with the Confederate leaders that the fort would not be attacked if he did not reinforce it. He sent a naval expedition to RESUPPLY it, which was within the scope of the agreement. The expedition was under orders NOT to reinforce the fort unless it was attacked. The Confederates violated their agreement. The excuse repeated for this is that the Confederates did not believe that Lincoln would honor the agreement. But the agreement was unquestionably violated by the Confederates. This reminds me of the impetus for the secession in the first place. Lincoln reassured the South that he would not interfere with slavery where it was established. The stated reason for the secession was that they did not believe that Lincoln would honor his promise. Thus in both cases the "grievance" was imaginary and the ostensible "response" was real. The Confederates got a war because they demanded one, by their deeds and words throughout.
    1
  12.  @chaddisrud535  "Lincoln agreed to withdraw federal troops from what had previously been federal property. However, he didn’t and brought more troops and supplies onto and island which was part of South Carolina." Two lies in that sentence. The agreement between Lincoln and the Confederates was that the US government would remain in possession of Fort Sumter, so long as it was not reinforced. AND IT WAS NOT REINFORCED.
    1
  13. Until all our allies are overrun, then the most expensive military we can afford won't save us. And we will deserve our fate.
    1
  14. Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager) Concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint: http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled, and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate against public speakers at their whim for any reason, including their animus toward and political viewpoints of their public users and providers of video content, because Defendants are for profit organizations rather than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are wrong. As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea that private property can constitute a public forum for free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme Court also recognized more than a half century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property. /end quote Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech? Martin Niemöller First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    1
  15.  @aintnoslice3422  Gordo is not a conservative. A white supremacist is an identity politics guy like you. Both of you are playing the same game. You are both authoritarians. Empower government to favor an identity group or groups. You just disagree on who the favored groups should be. Properly speaking, you are not enemies, just rivals. Conservatives oppose both of you, because we uphold freedom.
    1
  16. Then our allies get overrun, we get hit more by terrorists because we lose the ability to strike back at their sanctuary, and eventually we create a strategic situation where the biggest military we can still afford can't save us (because the bad guys command the resources and personnel of the whole world). And we will deserve what comes next, or at least YOU will.
    1
  17. No experiences were mentioned. They told him they got the idea from their daughters teachers. You didn't listen.
    1
  18. The part of our republic where we vote is the democracy part. That's what the Democrats are attacking. Don't shoot the messenger. She's on our side in this one.
    1
  19.  @louisphilippe1100  No, inflation is not simply higher prices. Inflate is a verb, it is something the government can to do a fiat money supply, and ours does it a lot. It is misleading to measure "inflation" by how much less your money can buy than 10 years ago. That is one way to measure inflation's EFFECT. But inflation itself is printing money (beyond replacement of worn-out currency). Supply and demand, increase the supply and you reduce the demand. Printing money does not increase the GDP, the mix of goods and services purchased with it. So the loss of value is implicit in inflating the money supply. It is the government taking some of the value of everybody who holds money.
    1
  20. Those timeline menu pies are a significant innovation, you will see other imitating the functionality.
    1
  21. "Locking the box" now is like shutting the gate after the cows have gotten out.
    1
  22. There is no contradiction between "the man who helped those people was a student" and "only the educated classes disregard masculinity". There would be between that first and "all educated people disregard masculinity". Syntax and logic.
    1
  23. He did not just advise "pay the minimal amount" on all debt. I am not going to repeat what he did say. Why bother to comment on videos you're too lazy to listen to? I will summarize that he advocated using the part of your budget allotted for debt retirement to pay the highest interest or smaller debts FIRST, making minimal payments on the lower interest debts till you have paid off the high interest ones first.
    1
  24. 1. That's not the intelligence agencies' job. 2. He would have told us if that was a possibility, right? (even if the possibility favored him) 3. He is from the Chicago Democrat machine. Therefore he KNOWS it is possible.
    1
  25.  @johnwachowicz1966  It's a good thing they do have them. Hamas doesn't let them leave. Because their leaders, their schools, their media, and their Koran and Hadiths tell them to kill Jews.
    1
  26. No disagreeing with you is not intolerance. Deplatforming you, censoring you, disrupting your assemblies with noise and violence. Attacking you, sicking the FBI and the IRS and the BATF on you doxing you and encouraging folks to come and bother you at home is intolerance. Threatening or advocating murder of political opponents is intolerance. Shooting you for your political views is intolerance. All of these things have been done by some leftists and defended by others. Because we have the courage of our convictions, this has not yet silenced us, and if we sit back and wait until it does, it will be too late. Calling you a name which attributes views to you which you do not hold or condone is more like slander than intolerance. Automatically applying slander to anybody who disagrees with any of your views is intolerance. Calling disagreement a microaggression or Nazi is intended as a justification for aggression, including violent aggression in return. This is the rhetoric which has spawned and justified domestic terror organizations like Antifa and BLM.
    1
  27. Ah, no, we treat minorities the same as everybody else on those issues, too.
    1
  28. Thanks, but your reply ignores my last sentence.
    1
  29. Guns don't kill people, MEN kill people.
    1
  30.  @zacksmith5963  What does that have to do with @EdensApple80 invoking God's blessing on America? Do you thing Dr. Saad would be offended or something? 😄
    1
  31. Uranium and Thorium are not fossil fuels, and would power the US for 100,000 years. Fusion would do better.
    1
  32. Yes, when the SS tax was taking in more money than SS spent, the surplus was squandered. Nowadays, SS is spending more than the SS tax takes in, and the deficit comes from the general budget.
    1
  33. We're all for it, but meanwhile we must give credit to Whom credit is due in our own lives.
    1
  34. Lithium is not a rare earth element. The rare earths in electric cars are in the motors.
    1
  35. +MrTableturns "The bottom 75%", particularly in a modern world with a substantial middle class, is an utterly absurd definition of "the poor". That reminds me of Prager's joke that he graduated in the top 85% of his yeshiva.
    1
  36.  @truthsaviour8804  "Have you ever been taught in elementary school that the Europeans tried to exterminate the Indians when they came to the new world? Of course not." Because the whole notion is absurd. The "Europeans" had the power to exterminate the aboriginal Americans. They did not. Some individuals carried out genocidal projects, but there never was a general consensus in favor of the policy. A lot of "Europeans" wanted their land. Few wanted their blood. And if they had, there would now be no Indians. And I wouldn't be here. I think Andrew Jackson would have been down with that. But he knew it was politically impossible.
    1
  37.  @truthsaviour8804  "You seem to suggest that because slavery existed for thousands of years, what is the big deal." No, that's your straw man. The argument is since slavery is immemorial and ubiquitous, it is not European or American. The only unique thing Christendom did to slavery is end it.
    1
  38. Labeling it excuses you from listening to it eh?
    1
  39. The school system is not rotting because we aren't spending enough money on it. We spend many times as much as we did when it worked, even adjusting for inflation. The school system is rotting because the teacher's unions control the whole system and run it as a career and pension program for teachers (as well as a political indoctrination center for students). The mess is a result of two pieces of legislation introduced by Jimmy Carter, and passed by the Democrat congress. First, the legalization of public sector labor unions and second the establishment of the federal Department of Education. The first of these in addition to messing up US education, paved the way for the entrenchment of the deep state throughout the bureaucracies, as well as myriad inefficiencies and pension bombs at every level. JC & co. also established the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the latter of which paved the way for the savings and loan crisis in the early 80s and the housing loan crisis late in the Bush administration. Later presidents might well have exceeded his spending, but Carter created the bureaucratic apparatus that made it possible, and all but inexorable. Unless the Carter legacy is completely reversed, we will never get a handle on education or spending; or reestablish effective democratic control of "our" government. Yes, the military/Industrial complex is a big problem. We need to do away with "cost plus" contracts and drain the swamp of our broken procurement system, particularly but not exclusively in Defense and NASA. That is the remaining quarter of our overall spending problem, after regulatory, administrative, and entitlement reform. Why talk about disarmament? To reject it, because there are those that advocate it, of course! A rejection of disarmament is by no means a rejection of procurement reform (though the MIC might wish to conflate the two). It is not fair to criticize a 5 minute video on the basis that it doesn't address all the world's problems.
    1
  40. How do you verify that? Because you liked the results?
    1
  41. If you feel that way, nobody here will miss you. How does your ethnicity enter into the discussion? What are you afraid of? Nobody is drafting you here, though someday in Tijuana, somebody might draft you to attack us.
    1
  42. I don't understand what you are getting at. The point is that gun control is not the answer, because making something illegal does not keep it from criminals. How is opposition to gun control not conservative?
    1
  43.  @MasonRai  Which 2 "myths"?
    1
  44.  @Maxwell_Twist  "This is how bad your argument is." If my argument is bad, you should be able to pick it apart. Positing something absurd, and saying it is the equivalent of what I said is not an argument against what I said.
    1
  45.  @2l84me8  "Science operates on reasonable hypothesis’s facts and credible evidence." Ideally, science does this. Not all that is called "science" does this. " makes accurate predictions via biology and paleontology." This is precisely where evolutionary theory breaks down. The theory predicts unbroken lines of gradual change from the most ancient life forms to current ones. The fossil ALWAYS shows new kinds appearing SUDDENLY, without immediate predecessor forms, then changing gradually within the genetic limits of the type. That is the opposite of what the theory predicts.
    1
  46. Your accusation does not follow from the quote. A retrenchment of character is the most effective way to prevent these shootings in the future, just as a decadence of character is a fundamental cause of them. Transforming to a police state is a solution worse than the problem.
    1
  47.  @Sylvertaco  "Any actual data" Are you asking for data to show that single parenthood is correlated to crime or that moral decline is related to single parenthood? Neither of these are seriously in dispute. "And who says a police state needs to be formed?" " Tougher background checks, restrictions on gun sales to said background checks, larger enforcement of licenses and distribution, and increased funding for professional mental health programs..." An increase of government involvement is historically the path to a police state. One never arises in a country with an armed populace. You still haven't shown the connection between an emphasis on moral retrenchment and apathy for effective preventative measures. One can talk about A without opposing an unrelated B, particularly when B has been talked to death. The central charge of your original post is unsupported, and unsupportable.
    1
  48. In three seconds you can break into a house and get blown right back out the window or door you came in. That is why in the UK, robbers try to break in when people are home, so they can steal the wallet and the purse and the car keys as well as the portable household goods. In the US, burglars try to break in when the occupants are out. Your scenario is more likely to succeed in an environment where neither the homebodies or the break-in has guns than in a situation where both do.
    1
  49.  @Cainus44  Try to defend this screed from the Bible, Bif
    1
  50.  @Cainus44  The party line of the major media outlets is ANTI-ISRAEL. If you think they are ZIONISTS you have the IQ of a turnip. When was the last time you saw a CNN news story favorable to Israel? Never, that's when! When is the last time a Hollywood movie was made that portrayed Israel in a positive light? Except for a few low budget indie films that buck the Hollywood line, probably before you were born. The leftist establishment is militantly HOSTILE to Israel, and the ethnic Jews are no exception.
    1