Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
72
-
57
-
31
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
20
-
15
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
@ydin9
I'm unclear if you are biased, or merely underinformed.
Israel was a Jewish country before Islam ever existed. When the land was given by Britain to Israel and the Arabs in 1948, the Arabs were given the best and most developed land, not even a close call, but Israel was okay with that, wanting to live in peace. Five Arab countries combined to attack Israel on that same day, promising to wipe Israel off the map. Similar Arab attacks against the sovereign land of Israel happened in 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and other times, with numerous Arab countries invading Israel and promising to "push Israel into the sea". The only time Israel has ever gone into Arab land was in response to Arab attacks. (Did someone tell you that Israel has ever started a war of aggression with anyone, ever? If so, they were wrong.) After Israel picked up land while defending itself from endless attacks, it did keep some of it as a defensive necessity. And yet Israel gave back that land to any country willing to make peace with Israel, such as when they handed all the land captured in 1967 from Egypt back to Egypt when the countries made peace in 1979. And Israel even handed over Gaza to their sworn enemies in 2005.
Israel has many times offered to give land to various terror groups in exchange for peace, but the terrorist groups have refused, instead promising to wipe Israel off the map.
So no, Israel has not been trying to expand any borders. It is their enemies doing that, but largely as an aside to killing as many innocents as they could out of pure hatred, based upon the incredibly evil propaganda they are fed from childhood.
Israel is home to Jews, Muslims, Christians, and people of all faiths and of no faith, with members of each group as full Israeli citizens with the same rights as anyone else. On the other side is Iranian-backed terrorist groups, dedicated to murdering as many Jewish and American civilians as they can.
This one is hardly a close call.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is the first time I have ever downvoted a Prager U video. As a conservative and a history teacher, I'm embarassed that they produced this nonsense. Nixon was a criminal and a lout. "He was the most dishonest individual I ever met in my life", wrote the man known as "Mr. Conservative", Senator
Barry Goldwater. Nixon was forced out after lying to everyone about Watergate, then erasing incriminating tapes to cover it up. Before that, Nixon had been involved in numerous other scandals, thus earning the name "Tricky Dick".
Neither was Nixon a conservative president. He implemeneted wage- and price- controls, which led to high inflation and high unemployment, and turned a surplus into a deficit. He started the EPA, signed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, all of which have been abused by the federal government. He gave in to the anti-war protesters, leading to a shameful US withdrawal - and perceived loss - in Vietnam. He sold out Taiwan in order to make nice to China. He made arms agreements with the Soviet Union which we kept and they broke, and even tried to confer MFN status on the USSR.
In short, Nixon was a criminal and a leftist, and not someone we have any business supporting. I like Hugh Hewitt, and I like Prager U, but this is nuts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I dislike radical Islamists and leftists as much as Ayaan does, but this video is a mess:
1. The Flight 93 passengers were bigger heroes than the hundreds of firefighters and police who ran into the towers? Why? What other choice did the Flight 93 passengers have besides rushing the cockpit? Were they going to sit back and watch a movie, knowing that the hijackers were going to crash the plane?
2. Ayaan would have us believe that large numbers of Americans back in 2001 believed that poverty was the motivation for the attacks, and those same people wanted to respond by nation building. Nice story, but without factual basis.
3. I don't like jihadists, and I don't like leftist radicals, but it is kind of hard to seriously compare the two. Jihadists attempt to murder innocent people every day of the year, mostly in countries thousands of miles away from the US. Can the same claim be made about leftists? Furthermore, a large percentage of followers of the leftist leaders are dupes who actually believe that they are fighting for freedom and equality, and who would never commit a violent act themselves, or even support someone else's. Would any reasonable person say the same about jihadis?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ShabazzTBL
You say that 550 years of slavery explains the racial discrepancy in America today.
A few questions for you:
1. More unmelanized slaves were held in North Africa than were melanized ones in North America. Why are those effects not felt by the descendants of the aforementioned unmelanized?
2. Where did you get the number 550 from anyway? Slavery has been around for thousands of years. The transatlantic slave trade lasted far less than 550 years. For nearly the entire history of slavery, people were enslaved by their own.
3. A century ago, melanized people had a higher rate of employment, and a higher rate of marriage, than did the unmelanized. What went wrong? Why has the melanized community lost so much ground since the advent of the Civil Rights era?
4. Immigrant groups are constantly arriving in the US, many with barely more than the clothes on their backs. They come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, China, Korea, Vietnam, and other such countries, some of them speaking no more than a few words of English. They move into slums, with both parents working menial jobs for 80+ hours a week each, and push their children to study all day and night to improve their lives. Those kids get into excellent schools, and are highly successful. In fact, they are statistically more succesful than the progeny of American slaves. How can that possibly be? How can they surpass those whose slavery ended 150 years ago - and whose legal equality came nearly sixty years ago - in a single generation?
The answer is that, as the brilliant Thomas Sowell has proven repeatedly, the Great Society began a terrible era for the melanized in the US, as the government incentivized unproductive behavior, thus creating more of it. Three generations in, and we have the mess that currently is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Builder the bob
What Lindsay supplied here was an example, not a definition. CRT is not easily definable in a short video. Lindsay is a major academic, and wrote a book on CRT. You think he can't define it??
CRT starts out with the assumption that all racial inequality is inequity, and all statistical differences in results by race are necessarily due to racial differences. It ignores numerous obvious difficulties:
A. Single variable statistics are near-useless
B. Predetermined single-variable statistics are, if this is possible, even worse
C. The overwhelming evidence of other data being the cause of differentials is extremely strong:
* The timing pre- and post- the civil rights
era
* Other factors, such as median age and,
more importantly, family dynamics
When one is preconditioned to see the world based upon a pre-chosen narrative, the result will obviously be heavily skewed. CRT is not only a prime example of such a pre-decided lens, it was explicitly designed by its radical authors as a political polemic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bradmason1588
I am going to guess that "Derrick Bell" is not your name irl, but that you dubbed your account after the 1960s/1970s radical who helped pioneer CRT. Not surprising, then. that you don't know - or don't want to know - the truth about the discipline.
First, James Lindsay: The man is a very accomplished academic (not a conservative, btw), who wrote a scholarly book about CRT and its dangers. He rather obviously understands it fully. In this video he provides an illustration of its effects, not a definition.
CRT is a shallow, hate- and falsehood- based argument, masquerading as an academic discipline. It starts out with the false assumption that all unequal statistical results by race are necessarily born of racism. It then seeks to uproot all of society based upon that myth.
Single-variable statistics are near-useless, and pre-decided single-based statistics based upon political beliefs are, if possible, even worse. The timing pre- and post- the Civil Rights era demonstrates the obvious problems with CRT. And the other data which CRT conveniently ignores simply shows that hateful doctrine to he utter rubbish.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SlimThrull
1. Prager is far closer to the truth than the NYT, WP, CNN, CBS, NBC or ABC ever are. Who reported 24 dead people, arson everywhere, cops routinely attacked, regular looting, $2b worth of damage, and autonomous zones as "mostly peaceful protests"? Who regularly promulgates the lie that the US is "systemically racist" against minorities? Who falsely claims that police disproportionately shoot and kill minorites, when the reverse is true, and by a large margin? Who spent years insisting that Trump was a Russian agent? Who covered up the Hunter Biden story? Who makes believe that the worst terrorists in the world, backed by Iran, are the good guys, while Israel is to blame? The MSM has no conscience, and no credibility. And by the way, I have a paid online subscription to the NYT and the WP. Just saying.
2. Prager's legal argument is that a platform such as YT is fundamentally different than is a publisher, and that by censoring one side they are violating the law. Prager makes no claim that they have a right to have their material posted by a private publisher, but that things are different with an allegedly neutral platform.
I am not a lawyer, but I have my doubts about Prager's claims. I tend to assume the libertarian view on that issue, but again, I am no law expert.
But are you really claiming that Prager's filing of a lawsuit puts them on a plane with the militant, extremist leftists who run the mainstream media? Get serious.
Prager videos hew far closer to the facts than today's mainstream media does, and it is not terribly close either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShabazzTBL
Your claims are false, at times incoherent, and other times possibly contradictory.
1. As I wrote above, more non-melanized people were held as slaves in North Africa than melanized folks were in North America. Your response was incoherent; the part I could make out never addressed my point.
2. You seemed to concede that you took the number 550 out of your nether quarters. At least that.
3. As MADx Games demonstrated above, your story about historical employment rate was without basis, instead repeating racial propaganda.
4. You never addressed the crucial point about marriage rates. Only a tiny percentage of inner city melanized folks have their fathers active in their lives. Kids born to teenage moms with no dad around tend to do poorly in life, irrelevant of melanin levels. Thank your beloved Democrat Party for incentivizing behavior detrimental to society.
5. Your new immigrant story is beautiful, but not at all based upon facts. The poorest immigrants living in NYC slums and working menial jobs for 18 hours a day get their kids into Stuyvesant. Or do you really believe that all those Pakistani or Bangladeshi immigrant couples are wealthier than the average melanized American?
6. Where you most expose your own weakness for leftist fallacies is with your rants about the criminal justice system, which is Alex Jones-like idiocy. "They admitted" that drug sentencing laws are "a ploy to imprison black people." Talk about absurdity. There was no such ploy, and certainly no one "admitted" to it.
Cocaine was used socially by doctors and lawyers in the late 1970s and early 1980s; your average person couldn't afford it. The epidemic of ruined lives began with the advent of crack cocaine, which made it affordable to all, and disproportionately affected the inner city. Desperate to save their own, melanized community leaders demanded that politicians change the sentencing given crack dealers, and laws were then enacted to that effect in bipartisan fashion.
Unfortunately, you continued down crazy path by going on about the prison industry being lucrative and therefore the system feeding it with innocent melanized folks. That is Farrakhan-style craziness, and backed by precisely zero evidence.
7. Speaking of which, and as partially noted by MADx Games above, your description of CRT is wildly off base. CRT starts out by assuming that everything has its basis in racism, then looks for evidence to prove its point. Using such feeble methods, anyone can "prove" anything, but basic intellectual rigor laughs at such attempts. Basic rule: Correlation does not imply causation. There are many reasons for current disparities on average, none of which is racist policies against the melanized. In fact, as amply demonstrated by the academic Heather Mac Donald, being melanized is an advantage when it comes to dealing with law enforcement, getting into college, applying for employment, and virtually every other measurable statistic.
1
-
@ShabazzTBL
Trying to read through your semi-literate, factually false rants is getting quite tiresome. Just a few points in response (not in any particular order), as I've already wasted far too much time considering your allergy to facts:
1. Your claim that slavery began in 1619 is stunningly ignorant.
2. No, you never admitted you were wrong about "550 years". You failed to defend the claim so I needled you about it. You are wrong about literally everything, yet you are still here flailing about.
3. Your story about employment rates assumes that statisticians are as dumb as you are. Anyone who has graduated JHS understands that 10% of one million is a larger absolute number than 10% of one thousand. You just threw out a wild response because the facts show that a higher percentage of melanized folks were employed than were non-melanized, and the facts don't fit your narrative.
4. Speaking of items you made up... In response to my point that most inner city melanized fathers are not involved in their children's lives, you came up with four remarkable rejoinders:
A. A study about whether incomes among husband and wives predict divorce, which you falsely and bizarrely decided shows that welfare for baby mommas increases the marriage rate, a rather wild claim backed by no studies and unrelated to this one,
B. You linked to a study of fathers which included no racial breakdown whatsoever, and which relied upon self-reported surveys of fathers' claimed level of involvement with their children, despite its utter irrelevance, as well as its total unreliability as it relies upon self-reporting,
C. Confused what I wrote about inner city fathers with melanized folks overall, apparently unaware that most melanized families are middle class or above, and
D. Accused me of racism, naturally.
I mean, are you freaking kidding me? Do you even read my comments? Do you read yours? Do you even glance at the links you include before sending them?
5. The article which you used as basis for your false claim that the war on drugs was only an excuse to lock up melanized folks and that "they...even admitted to it"? The Harper's article to which you linked does not that say that at all. John Erlichman, like his boss, was both a creep and a quack, and yet even he did not say what you claimed he said. Even if he had, that would hardly be a "they", that would be a "Richard Nixon". But that is not what Erlichman said, and anyway Nixon resigned in 1974, years before crack cocaine was invented. Do you not understand how you damage your own credibility by repeatedly proving yourself wrong?
6. I explained CRT, and once again, you can't handle the truth. That point is clear.
7. Your own many links, most of which I clicked on, either ignore or overtly disprove your own claims in regards to the economic backgrounds of immigrants. They come poor and work hard, and their kids are studious and become successful. That option is open to everyone.
8. YT lays a heavily censorial hand on my comments, forcing me to use oddball phraseology (e.g. "melanized"), and also automatically deleting any comments in which I provide a link. Feel free to Google for yourself an article by the respected academic Heather Mac Donald entitled "Are We All Unconscious Racists?". While you are at it, feel free to Google the official numbers on "Statista", under
"people shot to death by US police by race ". Being melanized is an advantage when it comes to dealing with law enforcement, college admissions, applying for employment, and every other measurable statistic.
Please learn the facts instead of just banging out semi-coherent, false, angry responses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Luis Jayons
I should have known that you are a Qanon crazy. You should study basic civics - bills must be passed by both houses of Congress, then signed by the president (or a vero overidden by a 2/3 majority of both houses), to become law. Just because something makes it out of committee? That doesn't make it law.
Now, let's talk about anti-Semitism.
The federal government spends $19b per day, 365 days a year. Even if the US sent Israel $38b over a decade, that would equal $3.8b per year, which is less than we spend every few hours.
And that $3.8b is a very small amount of just the foreign aid that the US distributes, which is $50b per year. So why would someone only focus on Israel?
Furthermore, the wall not being built has precisely nothing to do with government spending. The Democrats blocked the wall for political reasons. If the US had a surplus, the wall would not have been built either.
Back to foreign aid - the US gives foreign aid to more than 200 countries per year. How many of those countries give anything back to the US? Precious few. Outside of Israel, actually, I don't know if any of them give back. But Israel? Most of the foreign aid they receive is spent right here in the US, providing US manufacturing jobs. And Israel has long provided the US with vital intelligence in relation to countries all over the globe. That is no small point.
Anyone who focuses on aid to Israel as a serious concern either has no understand of the facts, or is driven by anti-Semitism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amc-world3956
Rationing of health care: In single-payer systems the government decides who will suffer and die
Brian Christine, MD
It is common for liberals and other supporters of a total government takeover of America’s health care system to praise the effectiveness, lower expenditures and “fairness” of other countries’ health care delivery. Most often, they heap praise on Canada’s health care system and point to the United Kingdom’s National Health Service as models that we should not only emulate but import wholesale into the United States. “Medicare for All!” is the demand.
The question we must ask, as a state and as a country, is what is the true cost of Washington, D.C.-controlled and directed health care? The true cost of Medicare for All is the price paid not in dollars but longer wait times to be treated for routine and life-threatening conditions alike, underfunding of all medical facilities and medical training programs, and most concerningly government panels deciding who will and who will not receive lifesaving treatments. The truth that Democrats will not publicly admit is that single-payer, government-controlled health care systems ration care.
The rationing of health care comes about in many ways. In Canada, providers of health care receive a strict, set number of dollars for a given year. These budgets are determined by government officials, and they lead directly to rationing of medical care by forcing providers to limit admissions to hospitals, limit the hours of public clinics, and disincentivizing Canadian doctors and nurses to see patients. To stay under budget, care is rationed; because of this rationing, Canadians face some of the longest wait times among industrialized nations. At any one time, more than 1 million Canadians are waiting for medical care. Recent data shows that, on average, the time from referral by a primary care doctor to treatment by a specialist is over 21 weeks. That’s more than five months. This five-month delay is on top of the time it takes to be seen by the primary care provider. Contrast that with the United States where about 80% of patients are treated within four weeks of referral.
Long wait times are also a reality in the United Kingdom, home of the other health care system political liberals would like us Americans to adopt. A recent report shows that about 250,000 Britons have been waiting more than six months for care, some waiting over nine months. Long wait times kill, especially when it is cancer that needs treating. Last year in England, nearly 25% of cancer patients did not start treatment within the time its healthcare system itself deems acceptable. Women with breast cancer and men with prostate cancer have lower survival rates in the U.K. than in the United States.
In Canada and in England, the governments control cost by underinvesting in medically necessary equipment. CAT scanners, ultrasound machines, and MRI machines are few and far between when compared to the United States and averaged by population. The lack of adequate access to medical imaging in Canada and the U.K. has been shown to add weeks to already long wait times; the longer it takes to receive these tests the longer it takes to diagnose and treat a medical condition. Access to advanced medical technology saves lives and reduces suffering. In socialized medicine, the government chooses to ration this care.
A stark example of how government-rationed care can take the lives of its citizens has been highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Failure to adequately fund health care infrastructure in government-controlled systems has resulted in a shortage of ICU beds at a time when they have been most needed. In the United States, there are 35 ICU beds per 100,000 population. In Canada, there are 13.5 ICU beds per 100,000 — in the U.K., there are 6.5 per 100,000.
In the United Kingdom, over half of the men and women who have died of COVID-19 have been over the age of 80 years, but less than 3% of these patients received intensive care treatment because there were not enough ICU beds available. Lifesaving care was rationed to the elderly in the U.K. and Canada, and the elderly died. Along the same lines, Charlie Gard was an 11-month-old boy with a severe brain condition, and his British doctors felt care should be withdrawn. President Trump and Pope Francis offered to transport Charlie and render potentially lifesaving care, but even this was denied to him and to his parents. Government-controlled health care wielded its heavy hand and rationed care to this baby. His parents’ words are sobering: “Mummy and Daddy love you so much Charlie, we always have and we always will and we are so sorry that we couldn’t save you. We had the chance but we weren’t allowed to give you that chance. Sweet dreams baby. Sleep tight our beautiful little boy.”
Withholding life-saving care is routine in socialized, government-controlled and funded health care systems, but quality of life-improving care readily available to Americans is also rationed. Cataract surgery, an outpatient procedure that can and does prevent blindness is rationed in England. Government panels that decide which treatments will be funded and by how much, have decided that cataract surgery is of “limited clinical value” and have rationed this surgery. Preventing blindness would seem a worthy goal for a “fair” health care system, but when the government makes the decisions someone has to lose. If you need knee replacement or hip surgery be glad you do not live in Canada or the United Kingdom unless you want to suffer your pain longer than patients in the United States; wait times for surgery are significantly longer. But, if you are from outside these two countries, you can travel to Canada or the U.K., pay cash, jump right ahead of tax-paying Canadians and British and get your treatment while they hobble in long waiting lines.
Rationing of health care in systems where the government controls funding, distribution of care, and decides “who” receives “what” is an absolute reality. Canada’s and the United Kingdom’s health systems, far from being models that America should move towards, are warnings. We will not improve U.S. health care by adopting a socialized, single-payer system. Smart, free-market-driven reform is a better way forward. When the federal government increases its power over health care, rationing occurs; when rationing of health care occurs, all, especially the elderly and most vulnerable, pay the price. Democrats continue to aggressively push and legislate for a single-payer health care system in the United States controlled by Washington. Medicare for All plans before the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate will force single-payer care upon us; Joe Biden’s proposed expansion of a Public Option is simply a Trojan horse that carries the same goal, single-payer, socialized medicine for the United States. Call it what you want, Medicare for All or a Public Option, but recognize it for what it brings: rationed care where no one benefits.
Dr. Christine is a urologic surgeon practicing in Birmingham, AL
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShnoogleMan
If your point is that your mind is permanently closed, then nothing will penetrate, facts be damned.
Adam Smith is known as the Father of Economics, Milton Friedman won a Pulitzer Prize for his work, and Sowell is the premier public intellectual of the last half century. The last two were full fledged Chicagoans, which is to say fully committed to empirical evidence, which is how Friedman saw the light after having started as a Keynsian, and Sowell did as well after having been a Marxist. They had open minds, and brilliant ones, and were thus led to the economic truth. No one ever managed to best either one in a debate, despite many trying over the decades.
Now that Friedman has passed, the leftists who melted in his presence have posthumously gone after his legacy, which is the only way they could try to diminish him, callous and crass as such a move is. Presumably they will try to do the same with Sowell down the road. Undoubtedly, the blind leftists who have no use for facts will take succor from such attempts.
As to your last point, it is not realistic to engage in a full debate on ideas in a YT comment section. Given a faceoff at opposing podiums, I would be happy to explain the facts as they are, but given the limitations of this forum, as well as the wide scope of your false claims, it seemed most sensible to just point the reader in the appropriate direction, and hope anyone with an open mind takes it from there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nuna1888
He is as disingenuous a person as there is. He made his money partially by inheriting a fortune from his father and lucking out with the expansion of the real estate market. His hyper-aggressive approach, which made him so much money when real estate was booming, drove him into bankruptcy when real estate collapsed. Why did he survive? The banks bailed him out, because he was Too Big To Fail.
Along the way, he ripped off everyone he ever did business with. He ripped off small businessmen, and ripped off average Joes when he tool their life savings for frauds like "Trump University". He also promoted himself as a major supporter of charities, but he was lying.
He evaded the Vietnam War by getting one of his father's rich contacts to write a fake report of bone sputs in his heels. I wonder which American went in Trump's place, and whether or not the guy came home from Vietnam.
Trump has viciously attacked anyone who disagrees with him for any reason. See the vile things he said about his opponents in the 2016 Republican Primary. Want an example of a lie? He accused Bush of lying to get us into war with Iraq - that's a lie. He accused Cruz of being ineligible to become president - that's a lie. He accused Cruz's father of killing JFK - that's a lie.
After becoming president, Trump immediately lied about the crowd size of his inauguration, and persisted from there. The Washington Post counted somethinf like 18,000 lies during his four years. Now the Washington Post is completely dishonest themselves, and therefore we need mot take their word for it. But look through their list. Do you not believe that, say, 1 out of 20 of their claims are accurate? If so, then that would make 900 lies in four years in office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBlueArmageddon
Most of Prager U's work is excellent, although a handful of their videos have been off base. I would say that their batting average vastly exceeds that of the New York Times, which refers to six months of out-of-control rioting as "mostly peaceful protests" despite dozens murdered, thousands of businesses destroyed, curfews needing to be imposed, and $5b worth of damage, and still refers to antifa, which is a Marxist domestic terrorist collection, as "an anti-fascist group". But do you go to some anti-NYT blogger or vlogger every time the "paper of record" writes something? No, of course you don't.
Some 400 lb guy wearing pajamas in his mom's basement claims that Prager is not accurate, but you will assume that he is dead on? Based upon what, outside of your bias?
1
-
@TheBlueArmageddon
If 95 two-seater Cessnas took off this morning and landed safely, while five jumbo jets crashed into the ocean, would the headline be that today's takeoffs were "mostly successful landings"? Offsetting the numbers of mass riots in large cities by counting every time that 12 people walk around a traffic circle in Sheboygan is a perfect example of the dishonesty of the mainstream media.
There is no way around the fact that daily riots for six months in which citizens have to cower in their houses while police are instructed not to do their jobs, with dozens slaughtered openly in the streets and hundreds of cops attacked, with thousands of businesses burned to the ground and $5 billion in damage caused, should not be described as "mostly peaceful protests". Please point to the public safety issue in which a 5% failure rate is considered a wonderful thing. And again, that doesn't even account for the false equivalence of mass riots in a major city with seven people walking in a circle on a street corner in Moose Jaw.
As to your favorite pajama-clad blogger, do you really expect me to spend hours watching his material? Anyone can "prove" anything when no one is there responding. Videos like the type you describe abound on the internet, proving wonderful items like the earth being flat and the CIA conducting the attacks against America in 2001. The idea is to seek out opposing opinions.
If you would like to make a specific claim against any Prager video, I will be happy to respond. As I wrote earlier, not everything they espouse is wholly accurate, but they are far more reliable than are the leftists in the mainstream media.
1
-
@TheBlueArmageddon
The NYT, WP, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and other leftist media constantly refer to "mostly peaceful protests". They refer to a domestic terrorist Communist group, antifa, as an "anti-fascist" group. They falsely claim that police shootings and killings disproportionately affect the melanized, despite the facts showing the precise opposite to be the case.
Six months of riots - that's true, it happened. I did not mean to imply that in any one given place every honest citizen had to hide from the mob. But curfews in large cities were a regular feature during that time period, as the police were told to stand back and let the rioters riot.
The media has continued to talk about a "racial reckoning", despite the facts showing that being melanized is a statistical advantage in this country, when dealing with prospective employers, with college admissions, with law enforcement, and with virtually every other measurable metric.
The media has treated BLM as if it were a civil rights group, instead of the anti-American, violent, Marxist hate group it truly is. And that despite BLM making almost no attempt whatsoever to disguise its true aims.
Despite your claim, I have always made a point of reading and hearing both sides. I currently have paid subscriptions to the NYT, WP, and LA Times.
I watched a single John Oliver video, and it was so packed full of dishonesty that I could barely make it through. I wish I could remember what the topic was; it goes back a few months. Do you really believe that he is telling it down the center?
You claim to have made "hundreds" of specific claims, while in fact you have made zero. You have this Prager video here making points which you dislike, you have had every opportunity to specify objections about this video or any other, yet you have refused to do so.
Let me note that I pointed you directly to an article made by a respected academic in a legitimate publication, which contains verifiable data and is very well written, yet you absolutely refuse to take a gander. At the same time, you claim to keep an open mind, seeking information from all sides, which you clearly don't. Watching a PragerU video, then running off to your basement friend and choosing to believe his "rebuttal", is hardly called hearing all sides.
Remember, I'm the one who receives the NYT, LA Times, and WP daily. I'm also the one who spent a decade listening to a show on my local NPR affiliate. No, I don't feel compelled to watch some guy's video. But can you say that you willingly take in both sides? I think the answer is obvious.
Again, if you choose to make a specific claim - even one, which you have not yet done - I would be happy to respond.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moatengator6047
You have established two points clearly:
1. You have multiple accounts from which to spam the comment section, suggestion a significant lack of self confidence, and
2. You suffer from severe tunnel vision.
As to the latter...Anyone with knowledge and common sense would understand shortly after being introduced to CRT that it is a study not worth pursuing. Your immersion in that foolishness does not show you to be educated, but rather a shallow dullard.
Let me provide an example: If a member of the Church of Scientology were to provide you a detailed questionnaire on the beliefs of L. Ron Hubbard, you would (hopefully) be unable to answer most of the questions. Why? Because any reasonable person should understand within five minutes that Scientology is quackery, and would not feel compelled to waste time delving into the specifics.
In the briefest of fashions, I explained above why CRT is utter nonsense, used by racial Marxists to attempt to overturn this country, leaning upon the use of a string of falsehoods. Any reasonably intelligent and clear-minded individual should be able to discern this fact long before he went down the rabbit hole of hatred and nonsense.
The fact that you choose to act superior due to your immersion in the cult does you no favors.
If you want to learn something, delve into the writings of Thomas Sowell. With an open mind and knowledge of the brilliant Dr. Sowell's thinking, CRT would become as transparent to you as it is to all wise folk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@generalerica4123
There are a couple of major problems with what you wrote.
1. Your description of CRT does not match that of its creators, such as Derek Bell and Richard Delgado.
2. Even your modified version of CRT is highly unscientific, as is any univariate observation.
Try the following:
* When most people's calendars are turned to "July", it tends to be really hot outside.
* When most people's calendars are open to October, the weather tends to be moderate.
* Solution: To solve climate change, everyone should change their calendars to October, and keep it there. It would only be a small inconvenience on the calendar front, but would keep the glaciers from melting.
Sounds like a plan?
In real life, CRT is a radical "solution" in search of an intellectual fig leaf. It steadfastly ignores all contravailing evidence, as well as other significant factors, of which there are plenty. Why did blacks have a higher rate of marriage than did whites in 1900? Why did blacks have a higher level of employment than did whites in 1930? Why do first generation Nigerian-Americans who grow up in abject poverty do so well? Why do desperately poor immigrants with semi-literate parents, irrelevant of country of origin, do better than American blacks on average? Why do blacks who grow up with married parents outdo whites? Why are minority children in charter schools vastly outperforming their counterparts in public schools? Why are many of those same charter school students in many cases outperforming students in the richest school districts? Those and many other questions are conveniently ignored by CRT adherents, such as the grifter Ibram X. Kendi, as it would eviscerate their every claim which underpins CRT and its supposed "solutions", which in turn would only make things worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JB-db4gf
The $1/wk they get from me isn't getting them very far. If I didn't find it worthwhile for myself, I would cancel the subscription, the way I did the LA Times just today.
I have stopped following professional sports since they kowtowed to the anti-American, racist, Marxist hate group. It irks me that millions of conservatives still support the NFL, NBA, and MLB. If conservatives boycotted, those leagues would be forced to walk back their support of the BLM gangsters. But the NYT? 99% of their subscribers are leftists to begin with. Every conservative could cancel tomorrow, and it wouldn't make a dent in their finances. They would, however, probably go even harder left, which is hard to imagine.
1
-
1
-
1