Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Valuetainment"
channel.
-
49
-
@jazzdub4958 By "pro-American" you mean pro-war? How many of those pro-America movies had heroes breaking the law for the greater good? Because that's how the Permanent Government (the unelected part) sees itself and wishes to be portrayed.
I can't name a single movie in my lifetime that portrayed an honest business man or an un-bigoted business man. The narratives have shifted over time, but Hollywood pushed socialism. You never see the good guys in a Hollywood film arguing for LESS government intrusion.
Her dad was right. You don't realize how you were being indoctrinated at the time, methinks.
As for Ronald Reagan, he talked a good game, and he was right about high taxes stifling prosperity and tax revenues over the long haul. He was right about government intervention as being a bigger problem than the problems it purported to solve. But in actions, he was very authoritarian. War on Drugs, 55 mph speed limit, low-interest loans for New England fishermen, ... He intervened any time he pleased, because he was so sure he was right, which is exactly what he supposedly stood against.
And don't get me started on the Cold War. I was staunchly anti-Soviet during those years. I think I would have taken a different view if I had known all the things we were doing to different countries prior, during, and since his administration. The main thing that made me believe as I did was the ridiculous over-estimates of the actual Soviet threat. Our "Intel Community" sold me a bill of goods, routinely over-estimating Soviet threats by easily a factor of 10.
Reagan slowed the rate of growth of domestic spending, but he made no fundamental shifts in domestic policy in that regard. The teeth gnashing by Democrats over entitlements was enough for him to mostly leave them alone. More than that, the enormous over-estimate of the Soviet threat gave the defense industry and all its minions a blank check. He and all his successors bought and SOLD us a world view full of dangers that justified any manner of murder, war, and subversion to fight those dangers, setting the stage for the war-mongering security state of today. Reagan did some good things and some bad things. He's not the idol so many on the right seem to worship. Like Trump, he was elected to drain the swamp, but when he left, the swamp was bigger and stronger than ever before.
25
-
@MrFurmos LOL! The FACT that Scientific American would publish such drivel says all you need to know about the publication. Very low quality control.
Also, I used to read Scientific American in the '70s and '80s. It went off the rails on climate change and has never restored itself in my good graces since. If they were right on any of that stuff, then why is New York City not under water? ALL of those models predict a planet on fire. NONE of those models, when applied to real-world data, succeed in predicting global temperatures.
Start the model in 1900. By 1950, the ice caps are gone. Start the model in 1950. By 1980, the ice caps are gone. Every single model exaggerates the amount of warming by a little or (usually) a lot. The more doomsday the article, the more praise it receives. But point out that ocean levels are rising at the same rate as they have for centuries and you will be canceled. Point out how HOT it was in the 1930s and get canceled. Point out how most of the 20th Century was global cooling, from the 1930s to the late 1970s and get canceled.
1978 was the low point of global temps in the 20th Century, after trending downward for decades. I remember reading articles about the impending Ice Age in the 1970s. They didn't switch to global warming until temps started rebounding in 1978/1979. This is the so-called "Hockey Stick," to which all must bow and offer sacrifice.
17
-
8
-
7
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course Tulsi didn't see this coming. She's a degenerate progressive. People in her corner have been insisting that the federal government do more and more, while we libertarians have been predicting EXACTLY THIS since the creation of the Welfare State in the 1960s. This is where forced re-distribution of wealth always leads.
The welfare state re-creates the Lord-Serf relationship between the state and the people. Oh, they make it SOUND like it's for our own good, but as the responsibilities expand, so does government authority, making us hostage to the whims of unelected bureaucrats and whoever can bribe, blackmail, or just flatter them into doing what they want them to do.
The more help given, the more help needed. The ability of the people to stand on their own two feet has been systematically crippled, so now everybody thinks all our problems are because the government doesn't do enough, when the opposite is true. Government's already done too much.
Tulsi stands back and criticizes where it's all lead. But the only reason she's surprised is because she's either stupid or just another pandering politician. Until these institutions are de-fanged and pared back (preferably abolished), it will be one crisis after the next, all leading in the same exact direction.
Socialized health care was a HUGE part of Hitler's 3rd Reich. It seemed to start innocently enough in the 19th Century, but it was ALWAYS about power at the top and creating a compliant population.
"If you oppose us, you LITERALLY want people to die!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm very pleased to see this video. I'm the kind of guy who would rather hear it told than watch a re-enactment of The Alamo. Same for the Titanic. I knew how it ended, and didn't like the ending.
16:30. My opinion of Trey Gowdy just went up a notch. He didn't go in for the kill, but he poked around pretty thoroughly and gave us the outlines. But he let the FBI and its parent, the DOJ stone-wall him, pretty much. They had everything shrouded in secrecy, but Gowdy pretty much pinpointed where the key information was. It's just taken years to penetrate the veil with de-class, which could have happened, sooner, but speaking strategically, time was on the Trump team's side, but with a November, 2020 deadline.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whether Trump was manipulated or not, he at the very least BLUNDERED BADLY. Trump, by deferring to Fauci, whom Trump had all the resources necessary to un-mask, but didn't.
You can make the case for a little stimulus after stopping the economy's heart with lockdowns. But as president, he should've fought against locking-down everything. Trump did NOT have the best people advising him, and if he did, then his handling of COVID response is even worse.
I think Trump exposed himself as part of the larger machine, with many of his decisions and inactions.
He made too many concessions to win, politically, and still failed, politically. He can't really drain a swamp of which he, himself, is a creature.
He will probably win the nomination, but whether he wins in '24 or not, I see him as controlled opposition. He gives the base enough red meat to keep them with him, while never really making the case to voters who are programmed to hate him.
1