Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1. 281
  2. 164
  3. 144
  4. 86
  5. 86
  6. 75
  7. 66
  8. 59
  9. 25
  10. 20
  11. 19
  12. 17
  13. 16
  14. 16
  15. 16
  16. 15
  17. 14
  18. 13
  19. 13
  20. 12
  21. 11
  22. 11
  23. 10
  24. 10
  25. 10
  26. 10
  27. 10
  28. 10
  29. 9
  30. 9
  31. 9
  32. 9
  33. 9
  34. Did you know that Bill Gates originally refused to have an office in Washington, D.C.? He didn't think it had anything to do with making (stealing) software. But because of his refusal, Congress went after him in a big way. Now Microsoft is one of the biggest lobbyists in the country, and everything's hunky-dory for Microsoft. The PROBLEM is Congress legislating on everything under the Sun. They don't have the expertise to craft the legislation, so they rely on "industry leaders." Needless to say, those "experts" have a big-corporation bias, so just about everything Congress comes out with favors the big corporations. When they SAY they're sticking it to the corporations, it's actually the big corporations sticking it to US by controlling the crafting of the rule sets by which we all must abide. Congress needs to stay in its fucking lane, but there's just too much political and monetary gain in it for it to resist. We need another Davy Crockett in Congress. When he was in Washington, there was a bill proposed to help the widow of a war hero, who'd lost everything. Everyone said what a compassionate and patriotic thing that was, but Crockett said "It's not our money to GIVE! But I will donate one week's pay to her and if everyone who supports this bill would do the same, she would be set up in style." Well, needless to say, nobody in the Congress wanted to give up THEIR money to this noble cause. Their compassion ended when it had to come out of THEIR pockets. We've come a long way (down) since then. There's nobody to challenge them on their fake compassion. "Sounds good! Let's do this 'for the American people.'" They're not doing it for us. They're taking from us to do for themSELVES.
    8
  35. 8
  36. 8
  37. 8
  38. 8
  39. 7
  40. 7
  41. 7
  42. 6
  43. 6
  44. 6
  45. 6
  46. 6
  47. 6
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 6
  51. 6
  52. 5
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. 5
  58. 5
  59. 5
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. I don't like Ilhan Omar, BUT the fact is that the USA has fallen into some very wicked, neocolonialist ways, with our foreign policy wonks still living in an echo chamber transplanted whole from 1945 realities. The Soviet Union no longer exists. NATO has become a rubber stamp for American aggression abroad. USA pays billions to provide European security against a threat that no longer exists. Nordstream 2 is a HUGE hypocrisy by the EU. Boy they want Russian oil and gas and at the same time expect the USA to keep troops stationed in Europe and waste billions of dollars. USA also gives EU major trade concessions that aren't in the USA's interest, unless their purpose is to have NATO give them an imprimatur of legitimacy for the USA's destructive regime-change policies. The USA never should've gotten involved in European politics and wars in the first place. If not for the USA, then no unconditional surrender. If no unconditional surrender, then no Treaty of Versailles. If no Treaty of Versailles, no Hitler... Anyway, I couldn't care less if Europe wants to buy oil and gas from Russia. But if they're going to do that, and if everybody agrees that an overwhelming number of Russian tanks are NOT revving up on the border of Poland, then let NATO go! NATO's just an alliance for prosecuting wars in the Middle East and anywhere else the USA feels like. That's bullshit! And every time we send another drone to "get the bad guy," we create another 100 or 1,000 terrorists. The more we do this regime change nonsense, the more dangerous the world becomes, and the more excuses the U.S. government has to tighten its grip on the American populace with a surveillance state that Stalin would've given his eye teeth to control.
    2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295.  @THYCR3AT0R  For all the criticisms of American capitalism, most of the problems with our health care system are caused by government, not solved by government. You probably think evil insurance companies are at the heart of it, I'm guessing. Do you know where health insurance came from? It came during the Roosevelt administration, when he imposed wage freezes like the good fascist he was, during the Great Depression. Health care benefits were a loophole big corporations could exploit to circumvent the wage freezes, thereby giving big corporations a nice, government-created competitive advantage in the labor market. Insurance companies came along after that. Before that, nobody dreamed of there being such a thing as health insurance. You just did the best you and your community could do, and there was a lot more community spirit back then, because people knew that they needed to look out for one another. You can't insure your health. Not really. For an insurance system to work like it does on cars, homes and such, there's a ceiling. You can "total" a car. You can consider a house a "total loss." But you can't put a dollar figure on the value of a human life. This health insurance made it possible, then, for bureaucrats to come in and decide what your life was worth. Med-4-All puts bureaucrats in charge of what, when, how much, and who gets health care, and believe me, the bureaucrats and politicians will make sure THEY are at the front of the line, and you and I will get what's left over. Do you know how long you have to wait for cardio, cancer, hip-replacement and many other surgeries in Canada or the UK? Do you know how many people come to the USA to receive cancer treatments that are unavailable in those countries, because their health-care mafia deem them improper? But we're not that far away from what's going on under socialized medicine in other countries. Do you realize how many extra paper-pushers a doctor has to hire just to fill out insurance and government paperwork? I think the doctors themselves spend something like 1/3 or their work day filling out forms rather than treating patients. Government involvement in the health care industry is far from a panacea. In fact, it results in drugs being MORE expensive than they have to be, because there's no profit in drugs after the patent expires. Why give you something off the shelf, when they can charge you up the ass for something new? They SAY it's "better" but is it really? Then there's the matter of pricing. As the single biggest consumer of health care (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), the government decides what it will pay for a treatment, whether it meets the cost or not. So who makes up the difference? The taxpayer who not only has to pay for Medicare and Medicaid, but also has to pay inflated insurance rates because hospitals charge the insured WAY more than they charge the government. Economics always has the final say and when you promise everything to everyone and you run out of resources, you cut corners and the quality of care goes down. But hey. Everybody's treated exactly the same, so it's fair, right? No. The rich people still get whatever they require. It's the blokes in the middle who WORK for a living who end up getting hurt. The first law of economics is that resources are not infinite. The first law of politics is to ignore the 1st law of economics. We'll just SAY we're handling everything and everyone will shut up, apparently. That, by the way, is why you wait for so long in UK and Canada for many treatments. Sometimes you die before you've ever been to a doctor. This is the same for ANYthing the government guarantees. It seems good for a while, but reality always has the final word. This is why people waited in bread lines in the Soviet Union. Adolf Hitler made bread his #1 priority "for the people." Bread shortages instantly became chronic throughout the tenure of the 3rd Reich. If you want to destroy a product or service, just nationalize/collectivize it. What a long rant. Just sick and tired of economically illiterate socialists, who know nothing of the real world, insisting they know more than everybody else because they're "educated."' But as the saying goes, "Garbage in. Garbage out."
    1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. But she never once questions the wisdom of having federal agencies governing everything under the sun, "for the greater good." Corruption is inevitable. Abuse of power is inevitable. The longer the agency's in place, no matter how carefully you set it up, eventually it will take on a life of its own and act in its own interest, or simply in the interests of the people running it. Anthony Fauci is a classic example. If there's a way to monetize (chronically under-funded) an agency, somebody will come along and find a way to do so, legally. That's what's going on at FDA, NIH, and who knows how many other federal agencies. The worse of a job an agency does, the more money gets thrown at it. And that's not even scratching the surface of what's happening with the Security State. FBI, DOJ-in-general, NSA, DOD, CIA, State Dept, ... THOSE departments and agencies are granted great secrecy powers, which is a HUGE screen to hide behind. And the people at the top, middle, and even lower levels have their OWN opinions and agendas, and "ongoing investigation" or "protecting sources and methods" arguments (and rules written by dept/agency officials) shield them from having to reveal what they're actually up to. This is unavoidable in war time, because you DO need to keep a lot of secrets, but that's why the Dept of Defense is always full of waste and corruption. Just that one department, alone, is too big to be properly overseen by Congress. Now add all the OTHER agencies on top of THAT. We accept that secrecy, because theoretically, we're only fighting wars against actual existential threats, as a last resort. But now we have a "crisis" every day, and every crisis "justifies" temporary extraordinary powers that the officials REALLY LIKE. During the pandemic, Fauci had more power to impose nationwide policies (by edict) than the president of the United States. Any slightest whim, the most casual utterance, was enforced on EVERYONE (except, of course, Fauci and government officials, who flew above our sufferings like a kid with a magnifying glass above an ant hill (on a sunny day). FDA, USDA bought off by Big Food and Big Pharma. NIH, CDC bought off by Big Pharma and individual billionaires. Blah blah blah. The point is, Tulsi was part of the PROBLEM, and remains part of the problem, with all the big progressive spending she wants to do, which will create whole new bureaucracies and grow existing ones. No. The answer isn't perfect oversight. The answer is to leave everything not national-defense and interstate and international trade up to the states. The states screw things up, too, but the damage caused is only to one state at a time. FEDERAL policies affect EVERYone, and FEDERAL powers and responsibilities should be pared down to a bare minimum. You can't stop the corruption, but you don't have to oversee agencies that don't exist!
    1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. I have mixed feelings about the cruise industry, personally. Long before COVID, I always thought of it as a spreader of contagion. But what ever happened to a person having enough self-agency to decide for themSELVES what risks they are willing to take? Life is NEVER perfect. Life is nothing but trade-offs. You get something. You give something. During the AIDs crisis, everybody KNEW that San Francisco bath houses were super-spreader loci. But did we shut them down? No. It might hurt somebody's fee-fees. Didn't matter that AIDs was universally believed to be invariably fatal. Now we're quarantining entire nations for a virus that has over 99% survival rate amongst all but those with serious health problems. Traditional epidemiology says you quarantine the SICK, NOT the healthy. (And you damn sure don't send the sick to nursing homes where our MOST vulnerable citizens reside, Mr. Cuomo.). Proper risk:benefit analysis was never performed. The 'nice' thing about it is you just latch on to whichever narrative appeals to you the most. There are many from which to choose, and more being manufactured every day from the people we're expected to - no, REQUIRED to - trust and obey. Personally, I think Big Pharma and their minions in the public health mafia were in a panic because they knew COVID was probably due to THEIR gain-of-function research, and the mental and rhetorical gymnastics they performed to circumvent a moratorium on such research. They even violated their own protocols for containment, farming out the research to an inadequately-equipped and managed Chinese Level-3 facility what was only to be performed in a Level-4 facility according to CDC's/NIH's/NIAID's own guidelines. Part of the "trick" was to change the very definition of the term "gain-of-function," even though it is very clear what gain-of-function is and what it means. But Fauci's incompetence/criminality is beside the point. The point is that anybody following the blow-by-blow events is now in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance. Don't like what they said yesterday? That's OK. They'll change their minds tomorrow, or just agree amongst themselves to re-define the meaning of words, themselves, so "is" no longer means "is," any more, for example. (Hat-tip to Bill Clinton. Thanks, buddy!) They don't care if you die of cancer, so long as you can't blame THEM for killing you with COVID. They don't care if you commit suicide or 'just' become despondent, out of shape, and socially deprived from the lock-downs and the loss of your livelihood. They don't care if you starve or end up in the streets. And if you're a landlord, they don't care if you lose everything, just so long as nobody thinks it's THEIR fault that you died of COVID. You want to know a good way to create a super-bug? Vaccinate a population in the midst of a pandemic. 330 million simultaneous opportunities for spontaneous mutations that are drug-resistant in the USA alone, if they can just get us ALL vaccinated! But they'll settle for 200 million, if they must. In Nature, with the assistance of well-known off-the-shelf treatments, we'd've been at herd immunity months ago. Thousands of clinicians have successfully treated COVID without major long-lasting side-effects. But for some reason, you're not allowed to hear about that, if you're relying on MSM or Big Tech, although the word still trickled out, which is why they're pushing for the same level of censorship in social media that they've had on radio and t.v. since the 1930s. The lock-down on info on MSM was kept more or less secret, since the Communications Act of 1934. FDR's extra-marital affairs (Who can blame him? Did you get a look at Eleanor?) were an open secret amongst Washington reporters. Not one report made its way into the public square. Same with Kennedy. Those are only two that we NOW know about. Open censorship during WW II was "OK" because "It's an emergency!" That government-friendly censorship never went away. It just went underground. We didn't even KNOW the news was being censored, because all it took was a handful of phone calls to a handful of corporate-media bigwigs, and stories just didn't get told. That system remained in place until the Internet came along. The manufacture of consent by a small number of ruling-class elites is a real thing and widely understood, but at the same time, millions take MSM at face value (more cognitive dissonance). Now they've got the old playbook open to the same old "It's an emergency!" chapter, and they're going to install the same under-the-radar censorship on the Internet, too, IF THEY CAN. There's more pushback than there was in 1934, when the culture was highly conservative and didn't really even think about how it was a violation of the 1st Amendment. It's a lot harder to keep it under wraps when there's more than just CBS and NBC to deal with (ABC came a bit later, iirc, but it fell right into line, because it knew what was good for it). Even before FDR tried packing the Supreme Court, everyone was so FREAKED that somebody might hear a bad word or something their preacher didn't like that nobody - including SCOTUS - kicked up much/any fuss. The Communications Decency Act of 1995 (Home of Section 230) was likewise an infringement by the federal government on the 1st Amendment. But that's OK. It's for the children. Or it's so we can have social media. Nonsense! It's all about power and once again setting the political, corporate and donor class above the people. Zuckerberg now decides. Bezos now decides. And if the Biden Admin doesn't like their decision, a couple phone calls is all it takes. That's how it's "supposed" to work. Don't want your kids to see porn or hear cuss words? Then do your job as a parent! Don't ask the government to step in! Every Linux box has a hosts.allow and a hosts.deny. if you love your kid, set deny to "all" and then only allow those DNSs you approve. Of course, you don't have to be a system programmer to do it. I'm surely not. It wouldn't take much of an app to perform that function. (I can't even remember the proper syntax. I just remember the feature from the early '90s when we were bringing the Internet to rural Idaho.) You can set a browser to shut down everything and allow your kids to only visit sites you approve. If your kid is sophisticated enough to hack that, then they're far enough along cognitively not to need your overprotectiveness.
    1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355.  @ms_understood630  Maybe if they didn't CENSOR the lab-leak hypothesis for a year, I'd believe they were all about the science. Maybe if Fauci's email "Did we cause this?" weren't pried loose under FOIA, you could make a case. Maybe if treatments OTHER than the experimental "vaccine" weren't universally suppressed and medical data from our best clinicians were able to be shared in full light of day, I'd believe CDC is following science. Science doesn't hide data. Science doesn't fear transparency. Maybe if there weren't ZERO flu deaths reported last winter, I'd believe this wasn't politically driven. So, did COVID magically extirpate influenza from the planet? Maybe if they didn't lock us in our homes for a year and make us wear masks outside with nobody around us, I'd believe this was about science. Main thing that makes me think this is about something other than COVID is the censorship. We've seen government and industry, via Big Tech, suppress free speech pretty systematically for the last few years. Much of what was censored a few years ago as "misinformation" is now known to be true. Those who got it right were subjected to scorn and ridicule. Some were even banned from social media, entirely. And for what? Speaking the truth! There was a time in this country when we believed that the best approximation to the truth was achieved by letting all sides speak their truth and letting the people decide for themselves. That has now given way to "those guys are wrong, and it's just too DANGEROUS to let them be heard." Why are these people so fragile about dissenting opinions? If they truly believe they're in the right, then they should welcome debate and total transparency, but that's not what we're seeing. And I'm not just talking about COVID. I'm talking about ANYTHING the Democrat National Committee or their crony corporations don't want us to hear. I'd have a little more confidence in what I was being told if I didn't sit through 3 years of RussiaGate hoax. I'd be more open to the other side if we didn't go to war over WMDs that never existed. There's a LONG PATTERN of misinformation and disinformation from the same people who have been censoring what THEY call misinformation. If this doesn't make you doubt what you're being told, NOW, then I don't think you're capable of much critical thinking.
    1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1