Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaliforniatoWestAfrica Without my father in the picture, I would've run roughshod over my mother by or before age 12. Dad was far from perfect, but he didn't tolerate any BS.
I remember how some of my peers would be out causing trouble or partying all hours on school nights, for instance. That was something that simply couldn't happen in our household without dire consequences.
Some rare women can do it all, at great cost to themselves, trying to do more than any one person should have to do. But the women who end up single, with children, usually aren't those kinds of women.
Bless you for overcoming your disadvantages. You can look at crime stats in a couple of different ways. While the vast majority of career criminals and/or people who spend their lives in poverty come from single-mother households, the flip side is that the vast majority raised by single mothers do, in fact, overcome it.
It's the same for being raised by abusive fathers. You're more likely to be an abuser if you were raised by an abuser, but MOST abused children do NOT repeat the mistakes of their fathers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did it occur to you that you're all wrapped up inside a sunk-cost fallacy?
Maybe we should question the original idea of (re-)creating the state of Israel in 1948, when we were all full of ourselves, drunk with power, with the British full of plans for re-drawing the map of the Middle East one more time. WWII saw an extension of British colonialism by other (U.S.) means.
I think our leaders got all full of themselves and, guided by the British, thought they were playing the Great Game against the USSR and China, when the plain fact is, their systems just can't keep up if we make them play by the rules and don't let them get a hold of our intellectual properties. We'll always have a lead. Free people just create a lot more and invent a lot more.
Instead, we've grown our government and created something very akin to the totalitarian regimes our leaders claim to oppose, which is their reason for acting like Naxis at home, looking for ways to censor speech and control the flow of information, using external and internal threats as the excuse to go after people with dissenting opinions, who speak against their policies.
We're basically dragging ourselves down to Stalin's level. People more and more afraid and more and more distrusting of people on "the other side" of the aisle from them, with one side always figuring that the way to win is to seize control of government and use government to suppress the opposition. I think we're seeing that, now, but we're talking about who committed the worst atrocity or made the most outrageous statement. Rather than dwell on the wrong in others, spend more time on the underlying truths.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As many are pointing out, below, we're not really "conservative" so much as we're libertarians or classical liberals. Technically, "conservative" in the political sense is that you defend the established order and tradition. That's not what we are. We're not reactionary, either, because we're not interested in "going back to an idealized past."
"Left versus right" is misleading as hell. It's a totally false dichotomy. It's more of a state-versus-individual dichotomy, and striking the proper balance between the two. We need SOME government, but we clearly have far too MUCH government, right now, and far too little diversity of thought permitted in the public square, in order to preserve an establishment that's just as out-of-touch, NOW, as the regressive right of the 1960s, and even more censorious and intolerant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1