Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Decoy Voice" channel.

  1. 210
  2. 108
  3. 49
  4. 22
  5. 21
  6. 14
  7. 13
  8. 12
  9. 9
  10. 9
  11. 8
  12. 7
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 5
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. I don't see any of 'em I agree with on everything, but Trump and Ramaswamy are the two most likely to end war. But I honestly can't say I trust any of them to reform and reduce our military footprint. We want to be strong and be able to hang with the big kids, but that has nothing to do with spending what we spend on over 1,000 bases around the world, with troops who are more like occupiers than soldiers. Bring our boys home. Defend our borders. Create a lean, mean, fighting machine that no one will want to fool with. Mind our own business. Our military is all about punching down and bribing foreigners to let us have bases in their countries. We need to stop trying to preserve the postwar (WW II) status quo from 1950, like it's an endangered species. The New World Order is multi-polar, not a globalist's wet dream. We certainly want safe trade routes at sea and on land, but that's why we want trading partners rather than foes. The Russians and Chinese WANT to trade. As soon as we're trading partners, safe passage is what everybody wants, so those who would threaten trade are vastly outnumbered! Something I'd do as president is insist on no entangling alliances. If a country wants to petition to become one of our United States, it may petition to do so, and we should probably make it easier for states to leave if they can't abide our federal government. Lincoln ended slavery. That was good. But it should be easier for states to secede from the Union if the feds are off their heads. Anyway, if you're a state, the USA will defend you to the hilt, and you will organize your institutions along American lines, but most of all, abide by the U.S. Constitution. But we're a long way from the USA abiding by the U.S. Constitution. Miles away from my crackpot ideas.
    1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. That game was a travesty. The fix was definitely in for the Bucs. I also thought Brady was very unsportsmanlike, putting on a drama instead of a football game. Right when it was OBVIOUS KC wasn't getting any calls, Brady had to make it all about how mean KC was, when the KC players were PISSED OFF at the terrible officiating. Maybe the Bucs win in a fair contest, that year, but that was not a fair contest. It was the first female ref in SB history and she made SURE the Bucs got off to a flying start. It was disgusting. Who really knows what was said or heard on the field? The game reminded me of the "retaliation" game, which is popularly known as the Meltdown at Milehigh, when Shannon Sharpe threw a fit, committed an EGREGIOUS penalty, but all the pity was for HIM, because he didn't like getting knocked on his butt at the line of scrimmage by Wayne Simmons. It wrecked Simmons' career and was a black mark on Derrick Thomas who was just sticking up for his guys after Sharpe PURPOSELY went for the back of a KC player's knees. No penalty for Sharpe. Just a pity party. Brady's considered the GOAT, but tuck rule and a plethora of other new rules to make it possible for a slow, brittle QB to thrive for over a decade. He hurts his knee standing in the pocket too long, so there's a new rule that you can't hit a QB below the damn waist. I've had enough of Brady. More than enough. Whatever happened that day, from that moment on, Mathieu lost his mojo. In the following AFC championship, he had Joe Burrow dead to rights on a blitz, and WHIFFED.
    1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1