Youtube comments of Jim Werther (@jimwerther).
-
4300
-
3100
-
2800
-
2100
-
1900
-
1800
-
1500
-
1200
-
1000
-
734
-
626
-
599
-
576
-
549
-
504
-
430
-
401
-
377
-
360
-
340
-
319
-
304
-
299
-
274
-
267
-
263
-
256
-
255
-
254
-
231
-
227
-
220
-
191
-
183
-
182
-
181
-
180
-
172
-
172
-
168
-
165
-
165
-
162
-
161
-
154
-
148
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
125
-
118
-
116
-
114
-
111
-
109
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
103
-
103
-
102
-
100
-
95
-
93
-
91
-
91
-
88
-
85
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
77
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@eleanorsanchez
Did I say they deserve death? I said that they are not particularly sympathetic victims. True crime stories usually focus on the most innocent of victims - most people don't exactly cry over the death of gang members or street prostitutes, people who live recklessly and are hard to relate to. The stories that grab everyone are the ones where the victims were absolute innocents, such as the one I just saw about Helene Pruszynski, a cold case solved 38 years later through genealogical DNA. Helene Pruszynski was the type of person who did everything right, a very impressive young lady, who was raped and murdered by an incredibly evil person. Her case, and those like it, are gripping, because the soul cries out for justice on behalf of the victim, the most innocent of people who did absolutely nothing risky, someone who lived her life right in every way. Doesn't resonate the same way when the victim - or victims, in this case - were reckless individuals acting like worthless people, sitting ducks for the next bum they came across, and there were many of those in their lives, obviously.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Based upon everything I read...
1. Marwan Ashraf leaked like a sieve to Israeli and British intelligence, and probably a few others as well.
2. He was greedy, selfish, egotistical, and absolutely reckless.
3. He was killed by Egyptian intelligence in retaliation for being a turncoat.
4. Ashraf first reached out to Israel while his father-in-law, Gamal Abdul Nasser, was Egypt's president, and Marwan was a low-level nothing. Marwan wanted money, and had no use for his father-in-law, who had tried to force his daughter, Mona, to divorce Marwan. He continued to give away state secrets under Sadat, only now the information was vastly more useful. Apparently he held grudges against Sadat as well. Marwan also sold military supplies to Muammar Qadafi in Libya, while bad-mouthing him behind his back too. Marwan wanted to live a life of opulence, and also couldn't get enough adulation from top officials in as many countries as he could.
5. Ahron (Rony) Bregman is a cartoonish character, a far-leftist who loves to pour venom on his country of birth. His claims are not taken very seriously.
6. Eli Zeira had been dropping ever-larger hints as to Marwan's identity, until Bregman actually bothered to notice. Eventually, someone would have, which is why the Israeli tribunal ruled against him. As mentioned here, Zeira has long wanted to point the blame elsewhere for his stunning failure to protect Israel in the leadup to the Yom Kippur War.
7. Even the wars mentioned here, 1967 and 1973, are depicted in a skewed way. Israel attacked in 1967 after the surrounding Arab countries, led by Egypt's Nasser, had pushed their troops to Israel's borders and promised to the world that they would annihilate Israel. The 1973 War ended in a stalemate, not an Egyptian victory. Egypt celebrated as if they had won, and Israel conducted investigations, because Egypt had initially done well in executing a surprise attack. However, Israel responded within days, and soon enough Israeli tanks were advancing on the Egyptian capital of Cairo. At that point Egypt sued for peace at the UN, and everything went back to status quo ante, with the Sinai right back in Israel's hands. The Egyptians were tickled pink that they had managed not to get humiliated as they had in 1967, and Israel annoyed that an invasion had been even a momentary success. It was a matter of expectations.
I read a number of articles about all this. If anyone wants to go that route, start out with "Who killed the 20th century’s greatest spy?", in the Guardian (UK).
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@fernandaolivares7926
Israeli Arabs serve as doctors, lawyers, businessmen, judges, in the Israeli military, as police officers, firefighters, medics, in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), on the Israeli Supreme Court, and everywhere else in Israeli life as full citizens, wth full voting rights, working side-by-side with their Jewish colleagues. Israeli Arab judges have convicted Israeli Jews of crimes and sent them to prison, and that includes an Israeli Arab judge who convicted a former president of Israel on corruption charges, and sentenced him to hard time. The CEO of Israel's largest bank? He's Arab too. In fact, there are more Arab doctors per capita in Israel than there are Jewish ones.
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
"You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor ... Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary ... Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."
- Mitsuo Fuchida, who led the attack on Pearl Harbor, speaking in 1959 to Paul Tibbets, who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima
"It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime."
- Emperor Hirohito, 1975, speaking to the media in Tokyo
"I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped (shikata ga nai) that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy."
- Japanese then-Defense Minister Fumio Kyūma, who is from Nagasaki, speaking in 2007, about both atomic bombs being dropped
"But they also showed a meanness and viciousness towards their enemies equal to the Huns'. Genghis Khan and his hordes could not have been more merciless. I have no doubts about whether the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. Without them, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished."
- Lee Kuan Yew, former Prime Minister of Singapore
"There are voices which assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. ... I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives."
— Winston Churchill
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@kannermw
That is the sort of thing you can't say out loud, but I've thought something similar for many years. My version is not quite as tough to swallow: Looking at how Palestinian terrorists routinely hide among civilians in Gaza etc., how they shoot rockets off from apartment buildings and hospitals, and how the terrorists literally carry babies with them while they attack knowing that Israel will let them go, I've long said that I would have the following policy: All military targets are legitimate, period. If the military targets are set up in civilian areas, then the civilian area just became a military target, and all blame for civilian deaths goes to whoever set up a military target around civilians. My version, I think, is easier to defend than yours.
That said, I will tell you how the Civil War was won by the North in 1864-1865. General William Tecumseh Sherman was tired of the Civil War dragging on. He had predicted from the start how the war would go, with Southern enthusiasm and initial victories being eventually worn down by the North after a few years. By mid-1864, everyone knew that it was just a matter of time until the North won, but many Southerners refused to face that reality. Sherman decided to push the envelope, theorizing that the war would end once the average Southerner found it sufficiently unbearable. He then began his march through the South, wherein after every military conquest his army would burn down every house nearby. They would tell the women to pack up themselves and their children, because their house was about to be burnt down. The women would be bawling, pointing out that they were innocent civilians who would now be homeless and unable to protect their children, but Sherman's army gave them no choice.
Behind thee scenes, Sherman's men found this action tore apart their souls, but Sherman insisted it was necessary. You know what? He was right. Throwing an endless line of women and children into the street seemed to be the most heartless thing in the world, particularly at a time when men were men and women were women. But as Sherman burned down the South, the price became unbearable for the Rebels, and an increasing number began to pressure Confederate President Jeff Davis to end the war already, as the price of war had become too much to bear.
To this day, the South curses Sherman's name, but he ultimately saved lives by pushing the war to an earlier conclusion.
Still different than what you advocated, but interesting and relevant nonetheless.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@YashArya01
Government should be as small as possible, but certain basic services is where it should be put to use, such as the military, law enforcement, firefighting, and building of public roads. I would have put ATC in that group, but Stossel made an excellent case to privatize it. Trurthfully, I'm still not clear how that would work in practice, but Stossel made a strong enough case that I'm convinced it can be done, as it apparently has been in numerous countries. Were I a member of the United States Congress I would certainly want to hear more from both sides, but I'm already convinced by Stossel that the answer most likely involves its privatization.
Thank you for the intelligent follow-up question. Worthwhile discussion on YT does in fact exist. Who knew?
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@smalltowngirlbigcityheart3724
The DNA on the bodies belongs to Rex Heuermann, not the former police chief.
The former police chief, James Burke, was a lifelong crook and thug. He finally got nailed after he beat the holy hell out of some small time thief who stole a bag out of his car, but Burke was a thug and a criminal his whole life. The DA, Burke's "mentor" who protected Burke, also lost his job, thankfully.
Absolutely none of this indicates whatsoever that there was a coverup. People love conspiracies, but 99/100 they are BS. Check up "Hanlon's Razor", which explains one of life's rules: Things that make no sense are almost always due to incompetence, not conspiracy. People give others' way too much credit, and spin wild tales in their own heads about cabals running the world, forgetting that your average person can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@alenkabkk
Pure speculation. If she was involved, I truly doubt that she would have volunteered that she's said, "take care of it". Furthermore, he not once pointed the finger at her after he was arrested, then charged, then tried, then convicted, then sentenced. Weird, huh? Then the texts - thousands of them. Even when he tried to sell his soul for a time machine. Yet not a single one discussing the situation with her? Isn't that strange? Furthermore, prosecutors never met a person they didn't want to charge, yet somehow never charged her. I wonder why? At least they should have charged her initially in order to get her to cut a deal and testify against him. Yet they never did. It must be because these two were such criminal geniuses that they outsmarted everyone - oh wait, they were absolute idiots.
I think the situation is rather clear - she wasn't involved.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Only the unintelligent would buy that story. Want actual facts?
1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints.
2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared.
3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim.
4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors.
Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn mess.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@julieuk5855
Thank you, again, for another thoughtful comment.
My grandfather came to the US from Europe in the 1930s, leaving behind his wife and children, which was their agreement; there was no other way to escape the Nazis. He then worked as hard as he could for a year, after which he was able to afford to bring my grandmother and their children over.
Less dramatically, my father-in-law moved 1600 miles away within the US a year ahead of my mother-in-law and their only child still living at home, a boy studying in high school. They joined him a year later.
Those two examples, along with that of your own family, are entirely different from the situation described in this video. They either were temporary separation of a family under desperate circumstances, or involve a far more minor situation.
Lena? She left behind a child, 12 years old at most but quite possibly younger, to pursue her own romantic goals. I find that very hard to swallow. While I did not feel compelled to make mention of it in direct response to the video, I read the OP's comment here and decided to chime in. I'm sorry, but who willingly moves 6000 miles away for their own gain and leaves behind her young daughter? Not someone who should be lauded as a Mother Of The Year candidate. So yes, the roses being thrown to Lena here in this thread sticks in my craw.
I am entirely unaware of the Windrush scandal. Perhaps that is well known in the UK, but not here.
Like you, I enjoy making "friends" in unplanned ways such as is occurring here. Hi, Friend! I am on the east coast of the United States, five hours behind you.
All the best, Jim.
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
That's nonsense - investigations focus on the best suspects, not foolishness. Here are the facts:
1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints.
2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared.
3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim.
4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors.
Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@julieuk5855
I appreciate your comment and your viewpoint.
The first sentence of your most recent post reads, "...but that was not the focus of the documentary". True! But my comment wasn't in response to the documentary, it was in response to the OP, who is blown away by the love Lena had for her daughter. Me? Color me skeptical. Because Lena picked up and moved 5700 miles for a man and left her young daughter behind. Who in the world does that?? I wouldn't. You wouldn't. The OP wouldn't. That is absolutely not motherly (or fatherly) behavior, don't you think? Yes, I am using conjecture in saying "mail order bride", but that is hardly an idle shot in the dark. Lena looks several years younger than does her husband Bill. 48 Hours, in deep sympathy for the mother and stepfather, somehow entirely glossed over the entire episode of how they met, and only made a passing reference to Diana joining her mom and stepdad at age 13. How long did she live in Moldova after her mom left her behind to chase a man? We aren't told. Anyway, if Diana and Bill had met innocently in advance, don't you think 48 Hours would have told us about it? They didn't because, I suspect, she was a mail order bride.
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The only apartheid is in Muslim lands. How many Jews live in Muslim countries? Most of them have killed or expelled all their Jews, while some - such as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia - do not allow Jews on their soil, even as visitors, to this very day.
1.8 million Arabs live in Israel as full Israeli citizens, where they serve in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), on the Israeli Supreme Court, in the Israeli Defense Forces, as EMTs, doctors, lawyers, police officers, judges, businessmen, CEOs, and everything else, working side-by-side with Israeli Jews. There are more Arab than Jewish doctors per capita in Israel. The biggest bank in Israel has an Arab as its CEO. An Arab judge put a former Israeli president into prison after convicting him of a crime.
If you really want to find out the facts, then open your mind and learn, please.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@sondrameyer2816
I am American, but I support great countries like Israel, and oppose terrorists. Why don't you listen to Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of Hamas's founder, who - like you - was brainwashed to hate Jews and Israel? Mosab eventually realized the truth, and now strongly supports Israel.
When Syrians near Israel get injured in the Syrian civil war, do you know where they go? To Israeli hospitals. Why? Because Israel is the only Middle Eastern country which gives full rights to minorities. Every other country in the Middle East is under apartheid. There us just one democracy, with full rights for all: Israel.
Israeli Arabs are full citizens, and constitute 20% of the population. They are students in the best Israeli universities. They vote. They are elected to the Israeli Parliament. They serve alongside Jewish doctors in Israeli hospitals while treating Jewish and Arab patients alike. (In fact a disproportionate number of doctors in Israel are Arab.) Arabs are lawyers and judges, including on the Israeli Supreme Court. The chairman of Bank Leumi, the biggest bank in Israel is Arab. The Israeli National Soccer Team is a mix of Jews and Arabs. Their team captain is Arab.
The most moral army in the world is Israel's. Before wiping out terrorists, they call first to give civilians a chance to get out of the way. Contrast with their terrorist enemies, who intentionally target civilians, both Israeli and their own, and hide behind civilians to maximize their own civilian casualties.
Anyone who is opposed to Israel is either ignorant of the basic facts, or is an anti-Semite. Or both.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@kevinegbune1088
I don't disagree with the theory, but with the specifics. Candace has become a clown show, not respected as a serious person, and certainly not as someone of particular intellect. Her show is a mishmash of ladies' gossip and ridiculous consp/ theories, such as her endless defense of Kanye and Andrew Tate, her putting her career on the line re her crazy Mrs. Macron theory, and her near-miraculous ignorance regarding the Middle East. She is simply not taken seriously. Ben, on the other hand, is universally seen as brilliant, which he undeniably is, even by those who disagree with his strong opposition to terror groups. It was Ben in particular who pushed hard to bring Candace onboard DW, and now she has made them look bad with her performance as a host. Furthermore, her numbers don't come close to Ben's. Obviously she is not brought in to serious venues for her opinions, as she is seen as a lightweight. Meaning, for example, you can like folks like Bill Maher or Piers Morgan, or you can hate them, but when they want to interview a heavyweight intellectual on the conservative side, they have Ben's name on a shortlist. Candace? She is considered a lightweight, and something of a joke.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@JoE_Songs
That Russian apologist professor at the end is REALLY hard to take. His cherry-picked version of history and WWIII fear-mongering is political propaganda, and not based upon the facts. Somehow members of the so-called Right these days talk precisely how Bernie Sanders used to back in the 1980s, yet expect to be taken seriously. Megyn, do better.
Fact is, in the early 1990s, with Yeltsin in charge in Russia, it was widely thought that the Cold War and its vestiges had been permanently erased. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" perfectly captured the moment. The US asked Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons, which they only did in exchange for a US guarantee of protection. We then sold them down the river, like we have all too often with the Kurds. I wish we were more honorable in our relations with other countries.
Fact is, if Trump were in office, the Ukraine invasion would have never happened. It was Biden's ineptitude which gave Putin the green light to do as he pleased. That started with the Afghan disaster, of course, but then continued with Biden's pulling the choke chain on the Ukrainians, again showing weakness and fear to the Russians.
Which is precisely what Jeffrey Sachs favors. Biden should have let Ukraine be aggressive against Russia on Day One, and perhaps this war could have ended much earlier. Instead this administration did everything to ensure a long-term quagmire, giving Ukraine just enough to prolong a war and drag out endless slaughter. This belated move by Biden is a small step in the right direction of placing Ukraine in a better negotiating position once Trump enters office.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jausti2
In short, you have no interest whatsoever in facts, and instead choose to repeat propaganda which ignores all that. The truth has been written about by folks like Thomas Sowell, Heather Mac Donald, Larry Elder, John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, and others, but you'd rather live your life falsely believing that you are a victim. It's a sad way to live, but apparently how you prefer it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Sixpence_None_The_Richer
I didn't take a picture of mine, but my wife and I voted. I live in an extremely competitive district - for US Congress, for NYS Senate, and for NYS Assembly. The vote for POTUS means little, but a bunch of other votes are very important. I pray that my wonderful first term Congressman, Mike Lawler (NY 17), beats back the unbelievably dirty, crooked, lying, phony campaign that the Democrats have targeted him with, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars. If Republicans did half of what the Democrats are doing here, the New York Times and Washington Post and CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC would have screaming headlines about how filthy their campaign is. The shameless crooks in the Democrat/Media complex, though, just want to win, and couldn't care less about facts or decency.
I used to live in NYC. My entire life, both in NYC and where I now live in the suburbs, I'd been represented in Congress by Democrats, until Lawler was elected two years ago. Lawler is a conservative, but one who is willing to work with reasonable Democrats; he has in fact proposed bipartisan legislation. But the Democrats here have used a bunch of fake front groups to attack him. One group makes believes that they are a non-partisan voter information group, and has spent many millions prerending to send out general information about the candidates. It is very well disguised to look like they are a "good government" trying to help voters, while they are actually spreading blatant falsehoods about Lawler and his BLM-supporting opponent. Then the Democrats sent out a bunch of mailers claiming that Lawler, who has not really said anything about Trump one way or another, is in fact a wild-eyed Trump guy. Then the Democrats, behind a different front group made to seem like they are Maga, sent a mailer to every Republican attacking Lawler for being insufficiently Maga, and saying that no Maga Republican should vote for him because he hasn't wrapped Trump in a bear hug. They have no shame, and neither does the media which daily invents supposed GOP scandals but ignores the vile stuff that the Democrats are doing.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Utter BS.
1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints.
2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared.
3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim.
4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors.
Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@BlkMagickGaia3
Yup! I know it well. My stalker harassed us - me, mostly, but also family - for years. It steadily got worse, but I was told that no Order of Protection could be issued until he committed a serious criminal act, such as sending me to a hospital. It was very predictable, and then it happened: He sent me to the hospital, and finally got arrested. Unfortunately, I did too: For defending myself, really. Charges against me were completely dropped, but spending 18 hours in custody was not fun. The stalker pled down to a lower charge, and we got a two year order of protection against him. He violated it whenever he felt like it, and then the Police would arrest him, and then he'd get released within three or four hours, and all charges eventually dropped. It was infuriating. So before the two year OP ran out, we moved, telling almost no one before we left, in a neighborhood where we knew hundreds of people. The whole thing is absurd. When will the law deal with stalking? It is a very serious issue, but few notice or care.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@aam6290
You are badly misinformed/misled.
The land was divvied up by the British based upon the population percentage of the time. Each time the Arabs said no, the British offered more, and yet each time the Arabs still declined. Which makes you wrong twice, just on that one score: Both percentages and context. Percentages as explained, and context because the most useful and desirable parts of the land were offered to the Arabs, but still they would not agree.
Are you forgetting about the parts of the British Mandate which became Jordan and other countries?
Your use of the term "Palestinian land", as in "giving Palestinian land to Zionists", shows that you lack basic understanding of history. What exactly is "Palestinian land"? When you write "Palestinian", is that a stand-in for "Arab"? I really hope not. If by "Palestinian" you mean the country of Israel as it was then known, then are you ignoring Transjordan and the rest of the area?
Bill Clinton said that he couldn't believe that Arafat was so foolish as to reject such a good deal that he was offered at the end of Clinton's presidency. It was reported later that Arafat said that he couldn't accept the deal, despite pressure from powerful Muslim governments, because he figured he would get assassinated back home for officially giving up on getting back every inch of Israel.
Meanwhile, Hamas openly says these days that their goal is to capture Israel and kill every Jew, along the way to taking over the entire planet and committing it to Sharia law.
And you expect Israel to deal with this nonsense? Israel has tried repeatedly to work out a two state solution, but it has been rejected out of hand every time by the people who want to genocide all Jews, and also take over the world. Any reasonable person aware of the basic facts would not expect Israel to even attempt to work with these people under the circumstances, any more than the Allies did with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in WWII or the US did with Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. The only reasonable goal is the utter annihilation of the side of evil, after which we can discuss building up the remnants with another Marshall Plan.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bridgetsmith6733
You are very wrong. Here are the facts:
1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints.
2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared.
3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim.
4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors.
Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@leahstone9308
Thank you!! I can't tell you how much I appreciate that, doubly so coming from a woman. It is usually women who absolutely adore Morrison, for reasons that are utterly beyond me. His over-the-top put-on style is so incredibly grating, that I managed to watch half an episode of his on Dateline before I gave up, and refuse to watch anything of his since. Which is unfortunate, because I have a longstanding interest in true crime, and probably have hundreds of cases committed to memory. But even if I want to learn more about a case, if it's Keith Morrison, I'm out immediately. He is the worst of the worst. (Just to be clear, I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, and I'm not commenting on his character whatsoever, just his style of narration.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@matthewkeebler2326
Thinking she did the right thing is not at all worse than spite; it is merely a difference of opinion regarding letting 8 year olds walk home alone. May I add: Who said that she still believes she did the right thing? I read several articles on the case after watching this video, and none had any follow-up quotes from anyone - not the 911 caller, not the arresting officer, not the local police chief, nor the prosecutor, not the judge, not the defense attorney, no one - outside of Heather Wallace, the obvious victim here, along with her son, Aidan. So anyone announcing what the 911 caller thought then and thinks now is engaged in mindreading and baseless accusations. Let us stick with the known facts, shall we?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@randolphtimm6031
The only way JonBenét lets someone in is if one is into the "Santa post-Christmas visit" story as an explanation for the murder. And even then, it is very, very doubtful. She was a very heavy sleeper, as most kids are. If she went anywhere in the middle of the night, it was sleepily into her brother's or parents' bed. I find it highly unlikely that she let anyone in. Anyway, there were a large number of possible entry points.
You've made a number of mistakes in regards to the bowl of pineapple. For one thing, it likely got there the following morning, when the BPD's Victim Advocates brought food, and the Ramsey friends also set up shop in the kitchen. There is no basis to say how much pineapple was missing, as we don't know how much was there in the first place. Patsy's and Burke's DNA on the bowl have a simple explanation: Those two used to put away the dishes together. The DNA doesn't disappear because the bowl had pineappple placed into it afterward. The story of pineapple being found in JBR's intestines is a thorough misunderstanding of the facts. The initial autopsy said as follows: "The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple." Notice the "may" part? The follow-up lab work done at the University of Colorado, Boulder found that it was in fact a mix of cherries, grapes, and pineapple; a fruit salad. No plain pineapple for JonBenét.
Hope that helps.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@husamaskhusam
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@1ronin907
It is in our interest to live in a stable world, and not let bad actors like China, Russia, North Korea and Iran throw their weight around.
In the 1930s, the civilized world was so appalled by the fresh memory of the mass destruction of The Great War that most people's instincts were to withdraw inward from the global scene. Winston Churchill understood the danger posed by Germany, but the masses were so desperate to avoid another war that they attempted to buy peace at any cost, including ceding the Sudetenland to Germany. It backfired terribly, of course: Feeding the shark didn't satisfy the shark, it fed its appetite for more. The result was a global war which made the first one look small by comparison.
The Democrats didn't learn that lesson all too well. In the 1970s and 1980s, seeking to appease the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire expanded into unwilling target countries, the left tried to make nice with the Soviets. Thankfully, Ronald Reagan took a hard stance and, together with help from Pope John Paul II and others, helped save the free world.
It is unfortunate that there are now hard leftists such as Tucker Carlson masquerading as conservatives and pushing Bernie Sanders's old 1980s' approach (in Tucker's case, lining up with Bernie not only in regards to foreign policy and "Russia First", but also in domestic policy as well, favoring heavy government intervention in the economy). That leftist approach is a proven failure. The three-step conservative stool that Ronald Reagan made famous included a muscular foreign policy, one that told the bad guys to not even think of starting up with us. The Reagan approach saved the free world in his time; the fact that other countries benefited should not make anyone forget how much it turned us around, saving the United States from the malaise into which Jimmy Carter's disastrous policies had placed us.
Right now, thanks to some dreadful policy positions enacted by Joe Biden and supported by the likes of Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens, the US looks incredibly weak. Tinpot dictators like those in Afghanistan, Russia and Iran laugh in our faces; Biden's response is to provide them with money and/or arms with which to even further target Americans with deadly attacks.
For those who claim that those awful policy prescriptions are Trumpian and "America First"? No, they are not, not in the least, not even close. Trump is proud that he started no wars; let us not forget that he did so by using American strength to intimidate the malevolent characters around the world into piping down and staying in their respective lanes. As to "America First"? American weakness is not "America First"; it is far closer to "America Last". Do you feel safer now with Joe Biden in office than you did while Donald Trump occupied the Oval Office? I sure don't.
Every time you hear a supposed "conservative" saying they want to reign in the military and use that money instead on domestic (read: welfare) spending, close your eyes and imagine it is 1979. Because those faux "conservatives" are pushing policies championed by Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, and the rest of the far left, policies that came all too close to leaving our country in ruins.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kleeamd8274
And now I just read your second response. A little rough, but I got a kick out of it nonetheless. What is wrong with some people?
At the risk of offending, I don't know, almost everyone? I am in the distinct minority of those with an interest in true crime, in that I'm male. Combine that with the stereotype of men (myself included) preferring to read non-fiction while women prefer pulp fiction (romance novels, and the like). So, what is it about true crime that attracts some people's interest? Based upon the nature of the comments, combined with what I just noted above, it seems that a rather significant percentage of women who follow true crime don't think of it as real people facing real prison time, but more like Fabio and the rest of the dime store novel genre. Then when they dislike someone (usually the accused), they are ready to throw them in prison, and sometimes their defense atttorneys as well for daring to do their jobs. It is as if the whole thing is a game of Clue come to life, without actual consequences. Meanwhile, some of us (women included, obviously) actually appreciate basic Constitutional concepts such as "presumption of innocence" and the Sixth Amendment ("and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"). What a concept, right?
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@michelleadams474
It once again sounds like you did not read my comment. Investigators have been taught how to push guilty people into confessing. For many decades, they would use these techniques, and feel amazing when those techniques worked to solve the case - or so they thought. It is only far more recently that studies were conducted showing that the same techniques which work to get the guilty to confess can work wonders on the innocent as well. These changes, though, take a long time to make their way through the system. The investigators in this case absolutely believed that they had their culprit when they sat down and put her through the ringer. And almost certainly they still believe the same today. It takes many years for new thinking to enter the conciousness of the old boys' network. Eventually, law enforcement as a whole will adjust, but the proces is still underway. Those investigators were taught the way these things have been taught for decades, and, like many people still today (including some who have commented in this section), they still find it impossible to believe that an innocent person would falsely confess to a gruesome crime, and even re-enact the scene with a doll. "Malicious" means they know they are doing the wrong thing. But they don't; they believe they did a bang-up job wearing down the perp and getting her to finally admit to what she had done. Therefore, wrong but not malicious.
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
-
@schumanhuman
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. As the great Thomas Sowell notes, "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it."
As to Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, the best study done on what has worked there and what hasn't was done by the scholar Nima Sanandaji, who wrote two books about it. I recommend "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism", which will wreck your claim herein.
Universal healthcare is a slow motion disaster. Here is a highly relevant article, which appeared in Forbes magazine:
What Socialized Medicine Looks Like
John C. Goodman
Left-wing Democrats in Congress have decided on a new version of “Medicare for All.” Turns out its going to be nothing like the Medicare program seniors are used to. What they have in mind is what we see in Canada.
Everyone (except American Indians and veterans) will be in the same system. Health care will be nominally free. Access to it will be determined by bureaucratic decision making.
Here’s what to expect.
Overproviding to the Healthy, Underproviding to the Sick.
The first thing politicians learn about health care is this: most people are healthy. In fact, they are very heathy – spending only a few dollars on medical care in any given year. By contrast, 50% of the health care dollars will be spent on only 5% of the population in a typical year.
Politicians in charge of health care, however, can’t afford to spend half their budget on only 5% of the voters, including those who may be too sick to vote at all. So, there is ever-present pressure to divert spending away from the sick toward the healthy.
In Canada and in Britain, patients see primary care physicians more often than Americans do. In fact, the ease with which relatively healthy people can see doctors is probably what accounts for the popularity of these system in both countries.
But once they get to the doctor’s office British and Canadians patients receive fewer services. For real medical problems, Canadians often go to hospital emergency rooms – where the average wait in Canada is four hours. In Britain, one of every ten emergency room patients leave without ever seeing a doctor.
A study by former Congressional Budget Office director June O’Neill and her husband Dave O’Neill found that:
* The proportion of middle-aged Canadian women who have never had a mammogram is twice the U.S. rate.
* Three times as many Canadian women have never had a pap smear.
* Fewer than 20% of Canadian men have ever been tested for prostate cancer, compared with about 50% of U.S. men.
* Only 10% of adult Canadians have ever had a colonoscopy, compared with 30% of US adults.
These differences in screening may partly explain why the mortality rate in Canada is 25% higher for breast cancer, 18% higher for prostate cancer, and 13% higher for colorectal cancer.
A study by Brookings Institution scholar Henry Aaron and his colleagues found that:
* Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners as the U.S. and one-third as many MRI scanners.
* The rate at which the British provide coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth of the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds of the U.S. rate.
* The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients age 45 to 84 and nine times higher for patients 85 years of age or older.
We can see the political pressure to provide services to the healthy at the expense of the sick in our own country’s Medicare program. Courtesy of Obamacare, every senior is entitled to a free wellness exam, which most doctors regard as virtually worthless. Yet if elderly patients endure an extended hospital stay, they can face unlimited out-of-pocket costs.
Rationing by Waiting.
Although Canada has no limits on how frequently a relatively healthy patient may see a doctor, it imposes strict limits on the purchase of medical technology and on the availability of specialists. Hospitals are subject to global budgets – which limit their spending, regardless of actual health needs.
In addition to having to wait many hours in emergency rooms, Canadians have some of the longest waits in the developed world for care that could cure diseases and save lives. The most recent study by the Fraser Institute finds that:
* In 2016, Canadians waited an average of 21.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner to receipt of treatment by a specialist – the longest wait time in over a quarter of a century of such measurements.
* Patients waited 4.1 weeks for a CT scan, 10.8 weeks for an MRI scan, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.
Similarly, a survey of hospital administrators in 2003 found that:
* 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman.
* 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.
Jumping the Queue.
Aneurin Bevan, father of the British National Health Service, declared, “the essence of a satisfactory health service is that rich and poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and wealth is not advantaged.” Yet, more than thirty years after the NHS was founded an official task force (The Black Report) found little evidence that the creation of the NHS had equalized health care access. Another study (The Acheson Report), fifty years after the NHS founding, concluded that access had become more unequal in the years between the two studies.
In Canada, studies find that the wealthy and powerful have significantly greater access to medical specialists than less-well-connected poor. High-profile patients enjoy more frequent services, shorter waiting times and greater choice of specialists. Moreover, among the nonelderly white population, low-income Canadians are 22% more likely to be in poor health than their U.S. counterparts.
These results should not be surprising. Rationing by waiting is as much an obstacle to care as rationing by price. It seems that the talents and skills that allow people to earn high incomes are similar to the talents and skills that are useful in successfully circumventing bureaucratic waiting lines.
No Exit.
The worst features of the U.S. health care system are the way in which impersonal bureaucracies interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Those are also the worst features of Canadian medical care. In Canada, when patients see a doctor the visit is free. In the U.S., the visit is almost free – with patients paying only 10 cents out of pocket for every dollar they spend, on average. In both countries, people primarily pay for care with time, not with money. The two systems are far more similar than they are different.
In Britain, private sector medicine allows patients to obtain care they are supposed to get for free from government. Middle and upper-middle income employees frequently have private health insurance, obtained through an employer. A much larger number of Britons use private doctors from time to time. The rule seems to be, “If your condition is serious, go private.”
Canada, by contrast, has basically outlawed private sector medical services that are theoretically provided by the government. If doctors, patients and entrepreneurs think of better ways of meeting patient needs they have no way of acting on those thoughts.
This is where the U.S. system is so much better—even though, as in the Canadian system, U.S. Medicare pays doctors the same way it did in the last century, before there were iPhones and email messages. Many U.S. employer plans are just as bad.
But because U.S. employers are free to meet the needs of their employees rather than live under the dictates of a politically pressured bureaucracy, one of the fastest growing employee benefits is concierge care. For as little as $50 a month for a young adult, patients can have 24/7 access to a doctor by phone and email and all the normal services that primary care physicians provide.
Uber-type house calls, consultations by phone, email and Skype, cellphone apps that allow people to manage their own care and other innovations in telemedicine are taking some parts of the private sector by storm.
These are the kinds of innovations that would be outlawed if the congressional Democrats have their way.
For more on these and other issues, interested readers may want to consult my congressional testimony, delivered with Linda Gorman, Devon Herrick and Robert Sade.
*
So, there is your beloved single-payer system in a nutshell.
Lastly, you can't expect to be taken seriously when you unironically employ a term like "copium", which I wasted my time Googling. Spend your energy educating yourself instead of writing nonsense.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@barbclark458
Perhaps the OP appreciated that the girl on the right is really attractive, and the one on the left had a semi-open jacket with no shirt on, and (seemingly) no bra either. As a red blooded American male, I can certainly understand that viewpoint. But keeping the volume on didn't add anything.
While we are here...I find it odd that Megyn never gave them a proper introduction. It's one thing for her to not explain to the audience who The Fifth Column is, or Ruthless. After all, those folks are on very, very frequently. But these two? I've been listening to Megyn religiously for nearly two years now, and I don't believe that I have ever heard of them. Perhaps Megyn was trying to avoid saying, "And now two extremely boring guests who add nothing to the show, unless you're a male watching on YT looking for eye candy." Even then, it might have been nice to know where she found these two. Not that I'm all that interested, because they add nothing. Thay said, I do think that they would be good candidates to read a mattress commercial, as they do a wonderful job putting everyone to sleep.
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
-
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
-
@tek3311
If you want to be taken seriously - and I don't know if you do - then stop being so absurdly melodramatic.
1. DW's policy of not naming spree, random killers is correct, and should be followed by the mass media. Except the mass media would rather bellow about the NRA instead of taking a concrete step to help solve the problem.
2. I don't listen to Matt Walsh regularly, so I don't know firsthand that he named the racist Waukesha killer, although I doubt you made it up. If accurate, I wonder why Walsh did so.
3. Even if he did, no reasonable person believes that Matt caused the Highland Park murders. I doubt that freak ever heard of Matt Walsh. And even on the 1% chance that he did, he wasn't hoping to get his name mentioned here but on CBS, NBC, ABC,CNN, etc. As such blaming Matt Walsh for the killings is absurd. And you knew that before I wrote it.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Nonsense.
1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints.
2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared.
3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim.
4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors.
Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@KamoGaming999
1. There is a world of difference between someone having a legitimate change of view on an issue or two, versus someone changing their mind on a dozen issues right before an election, specifically right after they're asked a tough question. The latter is more than a little suspicious.
2. My point about your being new to this was in response to your suggestion that I don't just take this video at face value, whoever this video host is. My response was to point out that my opinion on RFK Jr. has been in place long before I watched this video, and that the host here isn't just some guy, but the legendary John Stossel. So yes, your comment to me seemed to assume that I was also new to all this and needed to further research the matter, which is why I noted that I am very, very familiar with the players here.
3. Those who are more familiar with RFK Jr. tend not to be his supporters. He hasn't been vetted by the media because he is not a serious threat to win anything, which is how he gets the support he does - such as it is - from those who see his ads or interviews but haven't heard any pushback. Well, yeah, then he sounds good, but it doesn't mean much.
Follow up on:
* Eliza Cooney
* Mary Richardson Kennedy
* Robert H. Boyle
Or, better yet, try reading some of the following:
* "RFK Jr. Really Had Quite A Week", Slate magazine article
* "RFK Jr.'s Family Doesn't Want Him To Run. Even Though They May Not Know His Darkest Secrets." Vanity Fair Article
* "Ask Not", book by Maureen Callahan
* "RFK Jr.: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And The Dark Side Of The Dream", book by Jerry Oppenheimer
* "RFK Jr. spent years stoking fear and mistrust of vaccines. These people were hurt by his work", Associated Press article
* "How RFK Jr. hiring a bird smuggler threw his environmental group into turmoil", Washington Post article
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@amot5880
The only apartheid is in Muslim lands. How many Jews live in Muslim countries? Most of them have killed or expelled all their Jews, while some - such as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia - do not allow Jews on their soil, even as visitors, to this very day.
1.8 million Arabs live in Israel as full Israeli citizens, where they serve in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), on the Israeli Supreme Court, in the Israeli Defense Forces, as EMTs, doctors, lawyers, police officers, judges, businessmen, CEOs, and everything else, working side-by-side with Israeli Jews. There are more Arab than Jewish doctors per capita in Israel. The biggest bank in Israel has an Arab as its CEO. An Arab judge put a former Israeli president into prison after convicting him of a crime.
If you really want to find out the facts, then open your mind and learn, please.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mrs.elentz2336
I actually got choked up reading your comment. God bless you for being a good person and doing the right thing. We need more people like you out there, and I'm not just talking marriage/divorce, but life. And yes, I am sure that your maturity and integrity, under what must have been rather trying conditions at a young age, benefited everyone enormously - yourself, your ex-husband, and your son. But it doesn't stop there - also your current husband, your ex's wife, your step-children, his step-children, your future grandchildren, etc - everyone won. Your doing the right thing, morally speaking, also became the right thing for your peace of mind and for so much more. A lesson to everyone out there about not trying to get theirs at all cost, but rather deciding to do what is right. Had you lost out in a way such as having to live in a trailer for the next ten years while struggling to pay for food? You still would have won for having done the right thing, and for knowing in your heart that you are person of character. God upped that by having you win even in ways that may have seemed less likely at the time, for had you followed the lawyer's advice, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that you would be in a far worse place today. Congratulations to you, and thank you for restoring, if momentarily, everyone's belief in mankind.
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@laceyrugg
Nowhere did I use the word "abandoned" or "abandonment". I responded to the OP, who wrote of this mother's overwhelming love for her daughter, by noting that Lena moved 6000 miles away and left her preteen daughter behind, which really doesn't fit the narrative, now does it? Now, as far as why Lena came to the US... This episode does everything it can to paint Lena in the most sympathetic light possible, yet entirely avoided the question of why Lena moved here - without her young daughter - to begin with, which leads to the very strong suspicion that Lena at that point put her own needs far ahead of those of her young daughter. You know what a young girl needs? Her mother. You know what she doesn't need? To live with whomever while her mother moves across the world to marry someone, thus leaving her child behind. You know what else a little girl doesn't need? She doesn't need to only be able to reunite with her mother and her mother's husband - who little Diana had never met - by having to move to a new country, across the world, without knowing one word of the language spoken in that country.
So yeah, sorry, Lena doesn't exactly win Mother Of The Year in my book. And no, I would not have mentioned any of this in response to the video, but when someone posts, "I love how deeply and completely this woman loved her daughter 💗", I found that to be rather over the top. And so I responded.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Folks, ignore the troll ^ above.
From: Psychology Today
Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.
Posted September 18, 2014
Reviewed by Gary Drevitch
In this month's issue of Personality and Individual Differences, a study was published that confirms what we all suspected: Internet trolls are horrible people.
Let's start by getting our definitions straight: An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.
What kind of person would do this? Some Canadian researchers decided to find out.
They conducted two online studies with over 1,200 people, giving personality tests to each subject along with a survey about their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence that linked trolling with the "Dark Tetrad" of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism.
They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite Internet activity. To get an idea of how much more prevalent these traits were among Internet trolls, one can refer to tables from the paper showing low Dark Tetrad scores for everyone in the study . . . except the trolls. Their scores for all four traits soar on the chart. The relationship between trolling and the Dark Tetrad is so significant that the authors write in their paper:
"... the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists." [emphasis added]
Trolls truly enjoy making you feel bad. To quote the authors once more (because this is a truly quotable article): "Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun. . . and the Internet is their playground!"
The next time you encounter a troll online, remember:
These trolls are some truly difficult people.
It is your suffering that brings them pleasure, so the best thing you can do is ignore them.
References
Buckels, Erin E., Paul D. Trapnell, and Delroy L. Paulhus. "Trolls just want to have fun." Personality and Individual Differences67 (2014): 97-102.
Jennifer Golbeck, Ph.D., is a computer scientist and professor at the University of Maryland.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That Russian apologist professor at the end is REALLY hard to take. His cherry-picked version of history and WWIII fear-mongering is political propaganda, and not based upon the facts. Somehow members of the so-called Right these days talk precisely how Bernie Sanders used to back in the 1980s, yet expect to be taken seriously. Megyn, do better.
Fact is, in the early 1990s, with Yeltsin in charge in Russia, it was widely thought that the Cold War and its vestiges had been permanently erased. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" perfectly captured the moment. The US asked Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons, which they only did in exchange for a US guarantee of protection. We then sold them down the river, like we have all too often with the Kurds. I wish we were more honorable in our relations with other countries.
Fact is, if Trump were in office, the Ukraine invasion would have never happened. It was Biden's ineptitude which gave Putin the green light to do as he pleased. That started with the Afghan disaster, of course, but then continued with Biden's pulling the choke chain on the Ukrainians, again showing weakness and fear to the Russians.
Which is precisely what Jeffrey Sachs favors. Biden should have let Ukraine be aggressive against Russia on Day One, and perhaps this war could have ended much earlier. Instead this administration did everything to ensure a long-term quagmire, giving Ukraine just enough to prolong a war and drag out endless slaughter. This belated move by Biden is a small step in the right direction of placing Ukraine in a better negotiating position once Trump enters office.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@aryastark3148
Want some actual facts, instead of ridiculous propaganda?
* When Hamas builds a Headquarters beneath a hospital, that is a war crime. Hamas is responsible for those deaths, not Israel.
* When Israel warned civilians to leave the Hamas-infested north, it was Hamas who attacked the convoys heading south, not Israel. Another Hamas war crime.
* Israel has tried to live in peace with its Aab neighbors since Day One. The response has been five or six Arab countries attacking Israel in 1948, and again in 1967, and again in 1973. Once Egypt made peace with Israel, the Arabs focused their genocidal war on suicide bombings and rockets, always aiming to kill as many civilians as they could. Israel has the right, indeed the responsibility, to defend itself from genocidal murderers.
* The lack of santation? Are you actually unaware that Hamas pulled out the pipes they were given for clean water and sanitation, and turned them into parts for rockets, because Hamas only cares about killing Jews, not about the lives of their own people?
Here are a few questions for you:
1. Why is it that anywhere the "Palestinians" go, it is always followed by death and destruction?
2. Why have Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and other countries told your beloved "Palestinians" to get lost?
3. Why did the "Palestinians" ruin Lebanon, once the Paris of the Middle East, turning it into a civil war-filled hellzone?
4. Why do "Palestinians" and their supporters always call for genocide in their chants?
5. Why do 1,800,000 Arabs live peacefully in Israel as full fledged citizens, serving as IDF members, Knesset (Parliament) members, Supreme Court justices, police officers, firefighters, EMTs, businessmen, CEOs, judges, lawyers, doctors, and everything else, side-by-side with Israeli Jews? And why are there no Jews in Gaza and the West Bank, not mention Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries which don't allow in any Jews?
I await your response.
#FactsMatter
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
-
@annathemaanderson4448
There are many articles explaining different aspects of the abject failure of socialized medicine. If you are looking for me to explain all of what I wrote, I guess I could, although it gets pretty long. You can start by reading a short article by John C. Goodman, called "What Socialized Medicine Looks Like", and by watching a short YT video by Thomas Sowell, called: "Healthcare: What Politicians Don't Want You To Know" here on YT. You can also read a short book review of a tome by Sally C. Pipes. The article is titled, "Thomas Sowell: Book busts myths about other nations’ universal health care".
Elsewhere, Sowell summed it up succinctly: "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it."
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@noltihernandez1573
People have asked me, a Jew, if I'm from Israel. I say, no, I'm from New York. They say, yeah, but where are you really from? I repeat, New York. "And your parents?" "They were born in Germany, and escaped Hitler." I find it amusing, not a "microaggression", FFS.
Another story: Sweeny Murti is a well-known sports radio personality in NY. I interned at the station where he works: Dude is dark as hell, and has a weird name. I said, "Where are you from?" He said, "Pennsylvania". I looked him in the eye and said, "Get the hell out of here." He then told me his parents are from India. Did Sweeny care? I really, really don't think so.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The comment section, predictably, is 100% on Addimando's side. Why? How do you know that she is telling the truth? I would like to note that the host, Jericka Duncan, is a #MeToo activist, which obviously colors her reporting. And there were questions here that are tough to answer for those who blindly support Addimando. Why was Glover shot with a gun that directly touched his skin? Why does Addimando have a history of accusing men - many men - of abuse? How could she possibly have confused which man abused her, as she seems to have indicated about the repairman?
You want to know my opinion? I suspect that Glover probably did in fact abuse her. But I don't KNOW that, and neither do you. Unfortunately, the YT comment is frequently a cesspool of idiocy and overemotionalism, and this is doubly so when it comes to true crime videos. As such, any possible replies to this comment will probably, at a minimum, accuse me of mansplaining, and more likely of being an abuser myself. That's just the nature of the neighborhood around here. It's unfortunate, as true crime can be fascinating. But the overwhelming number of those interested in the topic - assuming that the comment section is a representative sample - are uneducated, unthinking, overemotional fools, who shoot accusations in all directions rather than ever bothering to stop and think. God forbid you should challenge your own preconceived notions and consider a different perspective, or actually follow the evidence. It is a rather sad spectacle.
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
-
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pj4340
Why did you write "Your number one was Marjorie Greene"? What does that even mean?
MTG said some absolutely batshit crazy stuff, mostly before she was elected. She retracted and apologized for much of it. She never actually claimed that "Jewish Space Lasers" started the California wildfires; that quote is wildly distorted.
Ultimately, no one believes she is actually anti-Semitic, just wacko.
In US history, committees were staffed by members put on there by their own parties. Then two years ago Democrats did something unprecedented: They began removing Republicans from a bunch of committees, based upon pretty much nothing. The Republicans warned that if the Democrats played that game, they would regret it once the GOP got the majority, but the Democrats ignored that and yanked a bunch of Republicans off committees anyway. Everyone knew what was coming next, once the Republicans gained the House.
The three Democrats targeted for removal from committees by the GOP are legitimate problems: Omar, an America hater and raging anti-Semite who had no business being on the Foreign Affairs committee, plus Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, removed from the Intelligence Committee after the former was involved with a Chinese spy and the latter lied repeatedly for two years about information he falsely claimed to have received from his committee. Turns out that the Republican payback was mild compared to the misdeeds of the Democrats.
In politics, weakness is not niceness: it's deadly. If you let the other party break all the rules and don't care, then they will destroy you.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@craftilady
Very fair answer. While I believe that the focus placed on the cops here is absurd, if in fact the ideas you raised could be widely implemented, and in fact could save the lives of even a small percentage of these girls, then sure, sounds like a wonderful idea. All that said, I can think of other situations where such counseling could be more useful, such as a)in high school, and b)when female victims of clear, obvious, undeniable abuse return to their abuser, as almost always happens. This case was far murkier.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@John Wilharm
Relax. I didn't mean that he used those exact words, but that is what his rhetoric equaled once he became the Democrats' 2008 nominee. Here is the start of a George Will column in Newsweek, from June of that year:
"Journalists consider themselves crusty, unsentimental creatures who, their battered fedoras shoved back on their heads, have slouched out of Ben Hecht's 1928 play 'The Front Page,' oozing skepticism from every pore. Actually, they are round-heeled romantics, such pushovers for a new swain that they did not laugh until their ribs squeaked when Barack Obama concluded his triumphal St. Paul, Minn., speech by proclaiming: 'I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick …'
It is absolutely certain that generations from now someone will remember that even before that night in St. Paul, care was provided to the sick in America. Obama also asserted that future generations would say that 'this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …' The man and the moment have met.
Obama's words mesmerize a nation accustomed to leaders who routinely use words with antic indifference to their accuracy. The No Child Left Behind law promises, indeed requires, that by 2014 all children will be "proficient" in reading and math. That will not happen. Obama vows to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. John McCain says 60 percent. Whether either goal should be reached, neither will be."
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
-
@flamboyentpromotions3471
Based upon everything I read...
1. Marwan Ashraf leaked like a sieve to Israeli and British intelligence, and probably a few others as well.
2. He was greedy, selfish, egotistical, and absolutely reckless.
3. He was killed by Egyptian intelligence in retaliation for being a turncoat.
4. Ashraf first reached out to Israel while his father-in-law, Gamal Abdul Nasser, was Egypt's president, and Marwan was a low-level nothing. Marwan wanted money, and had no use for his father-in-law, who had tried to force his daughter, Mona, to divorce Marwan. He continued to give away state secrets under Sadat, only now the information was vastly more useful. Apparently he held grudges against Sadat as well. Marwan also sold military supplies to Muammar Qadafi in Libya, while bad-mouthing him behind his back too. Marwan wanted to live a life of opulence, and also couldn't get enough adulation from top officials in as many countries as he could.
5. Ahron (Rony) Bregman is a cartoonish character, a far-leftist who loves to pour venom on his country of birth. His claims are not taken very seriously.
6. Eli Zeira had been dropping ever-larger hints as to Marwan's identity, until Bregman actually bothered to notice. Eventually, someone would have, which is why the Israeli tribunal ruled against him. As mentioned here, Zeira has long wanted to point the blame elsewhere for his stunning failure to protect Israel in the leadup to the Yom Kippur War.
7. Even the wars mentioned here, 1967 and 1973, are depicted in a skewed way. Israel attacked in 1967 after the surrounding Arab countries, led by Egypt's Nasser, had pushed their troops to Israel's borders and promised to the world that they would annihilate Israel. The 1973 War ended in a stalemate, not an Egyptian victory. Egypt celebrated as if they had won, and Israel conducted investigations, because Egypt had initially done well in executing a surprise attack. However, Israel responded within days, and soon enough Israeli tanks were advancing on the Egyptian capital of Cairo. At that point Egypt sued for peace at the UN, and everything went back to status quo ante, with the Sinai right back in Israel's hands. The Egyptians were tickled pink that they had managed not to get humiliated as they had in 1967, and Israel annoyed that an invasion had been even a momentary success. It was a matter of expectations.
I read a number of articles about all this. If anyone wants to go that route, start out with "Who killed the 20th century’s greatest spy?", in the Guardian (UK).
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
-
@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
-
@derekmiller6631
Reagan was one of the best presidents in US history, probably #2 behind George Washington. Reagan literally saved this country due to his foreign and domestic policies, and strong messaging. As to his tax cuts, all five quintants became wealthier in inflation-adjusted income.
One reason housing is so expensive now is because of the left's intervention into the free market, which greatly limits supply. Taxes, of course, are far too high, as spending is entirely out of control, thanks to FDR, LBJ, and Carter.
There is vastly more I could write, obviously, but basic economics doesn't fit into a YT comment.
2
-
2
-
@Ludoovik
Wow, you're still trying to spin your way out of this? Not going to work, really. Your one very, very limited "caveat", a single sentence buried in the fourth paragraph of an endless comment, is barely a a tiny percentage of the specific rebuttal I provided.
As it is, your entire, rather lengthy comment does everything to dispute your own "caveat". If you believed your own very limited caveat, you would have never written your comment, and certainly not your conclusion wherein you reiterated that life was better then than it is now.
Fact is, as another commenter noted, no serious person would argue that life was better during the Great Depression than it is today. That is such an obviously idiotic take, it is not surprising that you're still denying everything else that has come up here. An open, honest mind is hardly in evidence on your end.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cindytrayer4279
Cindy, darling, had you written above that based upon 33 year experience as a behavioral health professional, and with the obvious caveat that you couldn't possibly diagnose someone without their having been your patient, you believe that this individual may well be a (fill in the blank)? No problema. Not what I'm talking about.
The issue is that on true crime videos there are the inevitable comments accusing the perpetrator - or, even worse, the accused without evidence - of being a narcissist/psychopath/sociopath. And I mean, it's in the comment section of every single true crime video. Sorry, such nonsense is utterly without basis, rather serving as a means for the commenter to vent, and perhaps virtue signal, while receiving some likes placed by other ignoramuses. My patience has long waned for such foolishness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mbfurey7437
You are repeating misinformation. JonBenét was absolutely NOT sexually abused prior to the night of her murder:
Dr. Michael Doberson, the highly respected forensic pathologist and medical examiner for Arapahoe County, Colorado, was at the autopsy. He found no evidence of prior sexual abuse.
Dr. Leon Kelly, forensic pathologist in Colorado Springs, and expert on abused children, found no evidence of prior sexual abuse.
The Federal Court ruled, "No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse."
The FBI found no evidence of prior sexual abuse.
John Ramsey's daughter, Melinda Ramsey, is a nurse, and therefore a mandatory reporter. She is admant that John Ramsey never sexually abused anyone.
Authorities spoke to every maid, babysitter, au pair, gardener, everyone who had interacted with the Ramseys, to find out the relationship among family members. Turns out that the family was very tight. JonBenét missed her father terribly when he was away on business. Abusive relationships are not close relationships, as every mental health professional understands.
JonBenét's schoolteachers said that the little girl was very happy and well-adjusted. The pictures JonBenét drew, which can be seen in the book "We Have Your Daughter", clearly show a happy child. Abused children are not happy. JonBenét was very happy.
Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of Colorado University Sciences Health Center, and nationally respected director of the Kempe Center For The Prevention And Treatment Of Child Abuse And Neglect, said there was no evidence of prior sexual abuse.
Another physician at Kempe weighed in, and expressed the same opinion.
Dr. Francesco Beuf, JonBenét's pediatrician, flatly stated that there had been no prior abuse, period.
Dr. Ann Botash, expert on pediatric sexual abuse, and advocate for abused children, found no evidence of prior sexual abuse.
Okay, now the other side: Here is a list of all pathologists, as well as all doctors directly involved in the case, who said that JonBenét had been sexually abused prior to the night of her death:
Got it?
And if you want a list of reading material and videos to back up what I just wrote, just ask. But please be prepared to spend some time; I know this case really well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
20% of Israel's residents are Arab. They serve in the IDF, the Knesset and the Supreme Court, as police officers, judges, doctors and lawyers, working side-by-side with Israeli Jews. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Lebanon, Saudi, and numerous other Muslim countries, no Jews are allowed in.
Every civilian death in Israel is due to Hamas's war crimes. And every civilian death in GAZA is ALSO due to Hamas's war crimes - as defined by the Geneva Convention.
I just supplied you with a bunch of facts. As opposed to the wall-to-wall lies in this video.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That Russian apologist professor at the end of Thursday's show (Episode 950) is REALLY hard to take. His cherry-picked version of history and WWIII fear-mongering is political propaganda, and not based upon the facts. Somehow members of the so-called Right these days talk precisely how Bernie Sanders used to talk back in the 1980s, yet expect to be taken seriously.
Fact is, in the early 1990s, with Yeltsin in charge in Russia, it was widely thought that the Cold War and its vestiges had become part of a world which had suddenly yet permanently ceased to exist. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" perfectly captured the moment. The US asked Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons, which they only did in exchange for a US guarantee of protection. We then sold them down the river, like we have all too often with the Kurds. I wish we were more honorable in our relations with other countries.
We all know that if Trump had been in office, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine would not have happened. It was Biden's ineptitude which gave Putin the green light to do as he pleased. That started with the Afghan disaster, of course, but then continued with Biden's pulling the choke chain on the Ukrainians, again showing weakness and fear to the Russians.
Which is precisely what Jeffrey Sachs favors. In fact, what Biden should have done is let Ukraine be aggressive against Russia on Day One, whereupon this war could have ended much earlier. Instead this administration did everything to ensure a long-term quagmire, giving Ukraine just enough assistance to prolong a war and drag out endless slaughter. This belated move by Biden is a small step in the right direction of placing Ukraine in a better negotiating position once Trump enters office. Biden should have sent F-16s at the start as well, but openly admitted to being scared off by Putin's saber-rattling. Of course Putin will threaten WWIII any time he thinks he can convince the US to back off. What else does he have in his pocket? That sort of thing works on the Jimmy Carters, Joe Bidens, and Bernie Sanderses of the world. It is not supposed to work on Republicans. It sure didn't work on Reagan. And it would absolutely not work on Trump. Remember Trump telling Kim Jong-Un that the US nuclear button is a lot bigger than North Korea's?
No, there is no serious possibility that Putin is going to go nuclear. Russia is a backwater mess of a disaster of a country. Do their nukes even work? Putin has no interest in finding out, because there is a good chance that they don't. But ours do, and Putin would not only be dead in five minutes, his entire country would be in ruins. Remember what drives Putin more than anything else: A need to be seen by history as a Russian strongman who returned his country to its glory days of yore. Leaving it non-existent? He is not interested, really.
Despite some self-proclaimed Maga types pushing US isolationism as part of a larger picture of US fear and cowardice in front of weak pretenders like Putin and Russia, their platform of Democrat weakness is not only not Reagan-esque, it isn't Trump-esque either. They speak for themselves, and not for Donald Trump. Even JD Vance isn't opposed to the West helping Ukraine ward off Russian aggression, but only asks that the funding come from Europe.
As it happens, Ben Shapiro also covered this topic of Biden's latest move, followed by Putin's latest threat, on his show this week, either on Tuesday or Wednesday (I forget). Ben assured that the absolutely last thing Russia would do is pick a fight with the US, and certainly not a nuclear war. Ben is correct. The only serious concern we should have is the possibility of showing weakness to Putin and other nefarious actors on the world scene. Nothing encourages the bad guys more. The only reliable way to preserve peace is to exude fearless strength. After all, whenever US power is on display, our enemies tremble in fear. Which is how it should be.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@Pitbulllover77-y3l
What a fatuous, strawman, obviously false claim. As any rational person with even a modicum of intelligence understands, no one - not me, not anyone else - would defend the supposed misbehavior of the attorney if only the claim were true. The point is, many, including yourself, are throwing out an accusation of massive impropriety - IF ONLY IT WERE TRUE. Those of us who rightly note that a serious accusation requires serious evidence are pointing out that accusing people of massive wrongdoing - in public, no less - without a shred of evidence? That is highly improper behavior, and smells of slander, quite possibly driven by virtue signaling. Your defense - that because the claim is heavy, it must necessarily be true without any evidence, and furthermore anyone denying the baseless claim necessarily supports the highly improper behavior alleged, despite the lack of evidence? As I wrote above, no great amount of intelligence, wisdom or integrity is necessary to see through both the foolishness and immorality of such an absurd accusation. But it seems that those who have no problem accusing the attorney without evidence are just as happy to falsely accuse online commenters as well. Par for the course, I guess.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@la-zh4231
There are narrators who try way too hard IMO, instead of letting the story tell itself. I gave up on Forensic Files because of Peter Thomas's tendency to make it about himself. Keith Morrisson? I couldn't take him from Day One, much worse than Thomas. I find Dateline's production values to be shaky, and the constant interruptions from news anchors in between breaks rather annoying as well. No Dateline for me. But yes, women love Keith Morrisson, no question.
Who and what do I like? 48 Hours is king. Richard Schlesinger is amazing, and their other hosts pretty good as well (although I don't love Erin Moriarty). I could listen to Bill Kurtis read the phone book all day, which is why I'll watch American Justice, despite their flaws: Giving the plot away in the first 30 seconds, and mediocre production values. But Kurtis makes it all worth it.
If those kind of things don't bother you, then you've got a far wider library of shows from which to choose than I do.
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
-
That Russian apologist professor at the end is REALLY hard to take. His cherry-picked version of history and WWIII fear-mongering is political propaganda, and not based upon the facts. Somehow members of the so-called Right these days talk precisely how Bernie Sanders used to back in the 1980s, yet expect to be taken seriously. Megyn, do better.
Fact is, in the early 1990s, with Yeltsin in charge in Russia, it was widely thought that the Cold War and its vestiges had been permanently erased. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" perfectly captured the moment. The US asked Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons, which they only did in exchange for a US guarantee of protection. We then sold them down the river, like we have all too often with the Kurds. I wish we were more honorable in our relations with other countries.
Fact is, if Trump were in office, the Ukraine invasion would have never happened. It was Biden's ineptitude which gave Putin the green light to do as he pleased. That started with the Afghan disaster, of course, but then continued with Biden's pulling the choke chain on the Ukrainians, again showing weakness and fear to the Russians.
Which is precisely what Jeffrey Sachs favors. Biden should have let Ukraine be aggressive against Russia on Day One, and perhaps this war could have ended much earlier. Instead this administration did everything to ensure a long-term quagmire, giving Ukraine just enough to prolong a war and drag out endless slaughter. This belated move by Biden is a small step in the right direction of placing Ukraine in a better negotiating position once Trump enters office.
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
-
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
-
@VincenzoGCosta
Here is how democracy is at stake:
Six months of daily riots "mostly peaceful protests", egged on by Democrats and the mainstream media. The most costly riots in American history. And Democrat politicians, Kamala Harris among them, promoted a fund which bailed rioters out of prison.
One member of Congress advocated getting in the face of political adversaries. That was a Democrat - Maxine Waters.
Someone tried to murder numerous Congressmen, and nearly killed Steve Scalise. He was inspired to do so by Bernie Sanders's rhetoric.
A member of the Supreme Court was targeted for assassination. Bret Kavanaugh was marked by a member of the left. This came after Kavanaugh was publicly threatened by Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Five police officers were assassinated by a BLM supporter angry about police killings of black men, an issue reported on endlessly by the mainstream media. Statistics clearly show that whites are disproportionately killed by police. The leftist narrative is a lie, but the five Dallas officers are dead nonetheless.
Respected, Nevada-based long-time journalist Jeff German, age 69, was stabbed to death, allegedly by a politician he was covering, 45 year old Rob Telles, who faces the death penalty.
Shall I continue?
Meanwhile, the following is a list of elected Republicans who supported the invasion of the Capitol, a terrible incident which lasted three hours total:
(crickets)
And those are the facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sure, but we're wrong all the time, all of us. Sometimes it's really obvious and we are correct, but far more often we're guessing, as we don't know people's baseline personalities. Some people are nervous truth tellers, while others can calmly sell freezers on the North Pole.
No one knew this 30 years ago. Modern science has proven demonstrably how bad we all are at this, even if many individuals think they are brilliant at such matters. Fact is, mindreading is a huge reason why we used to convict innocents - and sometimes execute them - with all too much frequency. Along came DNA, and hundreds have been exonerated off of death row, people placed there because police and juries could "just tell". (Too late for thousands of others.) Follow-up studies have proven the point beyond any doubt, as Malcolm Gladwell and others have written about.
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
-
@noddingbart6915
I'm right about every point I made, not just that one. As to the dangers of chiropractory, if that's a word, I sure never knew about all that until I saw this video, followed by a few minutes afterward doing basic online research. Now I wouldn't go near one, but I'd never before known the inherent danger. That information is simply not known by the general public; chiropractic has been an accepted part of the medical field for generations now, including studies done by the NIH, which is considered the most prestigious health institute in the world. You can certainly argue that things should change, as apparently what happened in this situation, while extremely rare, is nonetheless considered a risk known and accepted in the field. But don't blame the patient for that, as it is not her fault, and certainly don't blanket the comment section with an accusing finger. The girl has suffered enough.
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
-
@myowngenesis
Israel's supplementing Gaza's water and electricity was never their responsibility to begin with! Gaza gets billions of dollars from the outside world for such things, but Hamas diverts the money for terrorism instead. Hamas has actually released videos of them proudly dismantling water pipes for use as rocket parts so they can fire them into Israeli high-population centers.
In that Israel never had to supply such things to Gaza to begin with, they really don't need to do so after the recipients began using their supplies to murder Israeli citizens. And yet...Israel only said on Oct 8 that they would shut off the water until the hostages were returned! That's a pretty reasonable request, don't you think? And yet, within days, Israel even turned on the water anyway for the southern part of Gaza, as an incentive to have civilians move away from the areas where Israel would have to attack in order to remove Hamas. All in all, Israel went far above and beyond their responsibilities, as they always do.
As to your next question...the Palestinian Authority does not exist in Gaza, because Hamas killed all of them. There was a civil war in Gaza between the groups in 2007/2008, and Hamas annihilated all PA members in Gaza at the time.
To be clear, the West Bank is full of radical Islamist genocidal terrorists as well. The "moderate" PA celebrated the October 7th attacks, and also paid out reward money to the terrorists who committed the atrocities (or to their surviving family members), as the PA does after every terrorist attack against Jews or Americans. It is colloquially known as "pay for slay". Not too moderate, really.
So while the media portrays the Israelis as the aggressors in the West Bank? That is really not accurate. Yes, there have been isolated attacks against civilian West Bank Arabs by Israeli settlers during this time of insanely high tensions; Israel has arrested all such perpetrators. Such events, though, are a tiny, tiny percentage of Jewish/Arab incidents in the West Bank. Nearly every violent attack has been Islamist terrorism against Jews. One reason Israel was caught unprepared on October 7 is because they had focused their security in the area of the West Bank, as there had been a big increase in Islamist genocidal terrorism there. Please understand that Arabs can safely walk in any area of any neighborhood in Israel proper without a care in the world, and will not be bothered by anyone. Any identifiable Jew caught in an Arab area of the West Bank will be dead within seconds. That is not an exaggeration; examples abound.
Understand that even in the West Bank, nominally run by the PA, it is the Hamas supporters who are dominant. The PA is seen as not militant enough by those who want to annihilate Israel. Public polling shows that Hamas is extremely popular there, that the Oct 7 attacks supported is by 75% of the Arab population of the West Bank, with 98% saying they hate the US. Only 10% of the populace there supports the PA. Which is why PA President Mahmoud Abbas is in the 17th year of his 4 year term - he always finds a reason to cancel elections, because he knows he would get crushed by Hamas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikekelley2877
Let's see. The president who presided over the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history with the insane Afghan pullout - which not only led to the deaths of 13 Americans and maiming of many more, it also led to the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghans as well as the enslavement of millions of Afghan women. Oh yes, and also led directly to Russia invading Ukraine, a war which has a death toll of half a million and counting. The same president who has opened the border wide for the Mexican cartel to use as a source for smuggling in criminals and drugs, as well as serially raping women. The president whose policies led directly to the highest inflation in two generations, wherein the average American family spends more than $700/month more now than they did two years ago. The president who has been unbelievably divisive despite promising to heal the country. The president who lies endlessly to everyone about everything, including lying to Americans who have lost family members to tragedy, when Biden lies to them about having gone through the same thing himself. The president who has illegally and immorally weaponized the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies while letting his own family get away with massive crimes. The president who has spent nearly the entire summer on vacation, but still hasn't found the time to visit East Palestine, despite promising to do so, and whose only comment on the Hawaii disaster after five days was to say "no comment". The president whose foreign policy weakness has encouraged Iran and their terrorist groups to kill many more innocents, then handed Iran billions in dollars to help create even more terrorism. The president who traded the "Merchant of Death" to the gangster Vladimir Putin, encouraging the latter to take more American hostages. And of course the same president who as Vice President sold out our country's foreign policy for millions of dollars in bribes.
And you think he's doing a bang-up job, right?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonyholmes1911
You are making no sense. The person who was responsible for picking up prints was the black detective. He found a palm print, not a fingerprint. So yes, you are blaming him, and no, it makes absolutely no sense, as the palm print was just as good as the fingerprint.
Once the ex-husband and boyfriend were ruled out, this crime looked like a random act. It did not appear that she knew her killer (and in fact, she may not have known her son's football coach). At that point, looking at Coach Joe once they established that he had left after dropping off the kid didn't make sense. Neighbors reported seeing a black male that night who did not live there, so they focused on finding the mysterious black male, but only after they focused heavily on her 1)ex-husband, 2)boyfriend, and 3)15 year old son, all of whom are white. The idea that the perpetrator wasn't caught earlier because of racism is baseless nonsense.
1
-
@anthonyholmes1911
1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints.
2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared.
3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim.
4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors.
Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
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
-
Yup. John Douglas did write that the Ramseys are innocent. As did the psychopathy expert who was on the scene that morning, Robert Whitson PhD, who wrote a book called "Injustice". So did the greatest homicide detective in recorded history, Lou Smit, who worked this case for years, and kept trying to tell law enforcement that they were barking up the wrong tree. The Federal Court in Atlanta found that "abundant evidence" showed that this was committed by an outside intruder. Boulder then-District Attorney Mary Lacy not only officially exonerated the Ramseys, she wrote a public letter of apology to the family. The top DNA experts in the country, such as Lawrence Kobilinsky of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, reached the same conclusion. Top UK scientists who were asked to review the case for a documentary shown in Britain and on A&E concluded that the strangulation preceded the head injury, essentially disproving the theories of the Ramsey accusers. Speaking of television, chief legal anchors on three different US networks - Erin Moriarty of CBS, Dan Abrams of ABC, and Elizabeth Vargas of A&E - all said that the Ramseys have been conclusively shown to be innocent.
Now go convince the gossipers like the host of this channel, the online commenters, and the supermarket tabloids. They think it's too much fun to still blame the Ramsey family.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@jedaiahkramer1204
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
****
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RC-qf3mp
Every single word Finkelstein said. How about the opening statement, when he claimed that no one knew about the carnage for four days? How about his bullschitt explanation about why he kept up his article despite it being based upon a lie? Piers didn't ask why Finkelstein didn't amend it with a note afterward explaining his supposed shift in thinking.
Piers left a lot of questions out, actually, such as:
* If Israel wanted control of Gaza, why did they hand it over fully in 2005?
* If Hamas terrorism is a response to Israeli aggression the last 17 years, then why did Hamas establish itself, and dedicate itself to extermination of all Jews, in 1988?
* If Hamas cares about their own lives, why does their founding document promise to exterminate Jews?
* If Hamas cares about their civilians, why do they hide behind them?
* If Hamas cares about their civilians, why did they stop civilians from moving south by shooting at those civilians?
* If Gaza is a concentration camp, why do they measure their lives in decades, not days or hours such as in 1940s Germany?
* If Gaza is a concentration camp, then why do you see Mercedes Benzes on the street? Why do they receive billions in aid packages? How do they build hundreds of miles of tunnels?
* If Hamas had attacked Egypt instead of Israel, would the notorious anti-Semite Finkelstein have similarly celebrated? Egypt has a border with Gaza, with a stronger separation than Israel does. Why does the anti-Semitic Feinkelstein focus on Israel instead of Egypt?
* Israel gave over Gaza in 2005, but only erected the fence in 2007, after Hamas won power and began attacking Israel. If Israel was out to get the Gazans, why did they wait a couple of years to erect a fence?
There's a start for you, based off what I remember of Finkelstein's lies. If Piers doesn't know enough to counter Finkelstein's lies, he shouldn't have him on.
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anaveragehuman2937
Well, I'll explain why you're wrong, in the hope that you actually care for a real answer.
This video is about Joe Biden lying about the deficit. You then commented about Biden lying about everything, a departure from the video's discussion of a specific, false claim, turned instead into a personal attack on Biden. It was designed to show that lying is a Biden trademark.
Considering, though, that Biden's predecessor was and is a more prolific liar than Biden is, it is disingenuous to act as if lying is endemic to Biden and Biden alone.
Meaning, if I posted an original comment in response to the video, saying, "But Trump lied about the election!", then that would be off-point, and a total what-about-ism. But once you've tried to paint congenital lying as a Biden-specific issue, it rather obviously comes off as blindly partisan because Biden's predecessor lied even more than Biden does. My comment is very relevant to yours.
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
-
@zacharythomas8617
Unlike you leftists, who live life in an echo chamber of radical nonsense, I avail myself of the facts, and make a point of learning how it is that the radical left comes to believe in that which they do. As such, I not only watch Democrat Party spin such as Meet The Press, I have a subscription to the NYT, the LA Times, and the WaPo. I know of what I speak. The commenters here, however, are so stunningly ignorant that they fail to even recognize how badly they expose their ignorance with their comments, or else they would be far too embarassed to write them in he first place.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMezmerized
What's remarkable is that your bias is so pronounced that you can't even recognize it once you've put into words for the world to see. I wonder if you even watched this lecture upon which you are commenting, or if you found even that exercise too threatening to your preferred belief system. This professor did a remarkable job in dismantling the narrative of those who use the false climate "emergency" as a way to forward their radical anti-capitalistic goals. Limited to a short time period, he only skimmed the surface of several - certainly not all - of the absurdities and changing versions of the left's anti-progressive agenda. Do you have a response? Of course not. Fact is, even if all temperature meausurements are done entirely correctly and fully account for all outside factors - a near impossibility - trends in both directions are a part of weather patterns, just as they were in the 1960s and 1970s when the climate "catastrophe" around the corner was global cooling. It is sad that you have no interest in facts, data, and/or a reasoned, balanced approach to life's challenges, preferring instead your hysterical, anti-historical, nihilistic, authoritarian approach. You're fooling no one aside, most likely, from yourself.
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
-
So much of this reminds me of 6 year old JonBenét Ramsey. Police detective Steve Ramsey decided immediately that Patsy, JonBenét's mom, had killed JonBenét by mistake. The theory not only made no sense, it was physically impossible. Yet he spent all day, day after day, week after week, leaking one false story after another to the tabloids, as he tried to pressure JonBenét's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, to turn on each other. It's been nearly 30 years, but we still don't know who killed JonBenét, thanks to the incompetence of the Boulder PD. And because Steve Thomas spread blatant lies everywhere, many people still falsely blame the Ramseys for the death of little 6 year old JonBenét. In real life, the family was totally exonerated; we know with certainty that this crime was committed by someone who broke into the house. Yet the Boulder PD still refuses to give the case over to the FBI for genealogical genetic testing, despite John Ramsey begging them to do so and solve the case in his lifetime.
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
-
1
-
@lairdey
There is no evidence that the election was stolen by election officials after the election. This has been made clear by every single responsible conservative outlet. If you think you have a case, you go to court. The Trump campaign lost their court cases, because they had nothing. Conspiracy theories are not evidence. At that point, you concede and go home.
The only difference this time around versus other elections is that Trump was never going to admit defeat, and never will. He could lose by 25 million votes, and he'll still claim a landslide victory, like he claimed the most crowded inauguration ever. Only cultists believe Trump's obvious lies.
The irony is that had Trump done the honorable thing in the days after the election - concede and transition - he would likely be ahead now in the polls, and not facing any serious court cases. But Trump is Trump, the biggest narcissist in world history, and absolutely his own worst enemy. As long as his enablers in the GOP continue to blindly follow him, the party - and the country - will continue to lose out.
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
-
@blonze_brick
I can't link to anything because YT automatically deletes any comment I post with a link in it.
The arguments to make radical changes in our use of fossil fuels because of the danger of climate change are absurd on their face. I'm not a scientist, but how is it that in the 1970s, when dirty oil and very dirty coal was used with abandon, the great concern was global cooling? That's less than 50 years ago. Other historical indicators also show that sometimes the earth warms and others the earth cools, and we all adjust. Are we responsible for much of that change? I'm skeptical. Even if we are, handicapping ourselves now when we absolutely need oil in order to address a possible future issue is absurd and irresponsible. Go explain to the Ukrainians getting killed why there is such a need for Russian oil, because the west unilaterally disarmed on that front. It's as if someone's house is on fire, and the fire department refuses to come since they believe that we need to conserve water.
Even if the worst-case scenarios come true, we could easiy migrate over the course of genrations. There are millions of miles of uninhabitable lands (Greenland, Canada, North and South Pole areas, and much more) because they are too cold. Say 100 years from now - again, under only the absolute worst-case scenarios - there is some movement away from equatorial areas, and migration to colder climates?
And that also ignores the possible solutions that will be available by then, such as carbon capture. There are many who believe that such things should be usable within a few years.
But instead the west unilaterally disarms, and weakens ourselves in relation to some of the world's worst governments who, it should be noted, drill in ways far less clean than the west does. So all our current "conservation" is actually making things worse. And nothing we say or do will make a dent in how China and Russia and other bad actors go about their business. There is literally no reason whatsoever for the Keystone Pipeline to have been shut down. It hurts the West, the US in particular, and hurts the climate. It does, however, please the climate radicals.
And therein lies the rub. It is hard not to notice that every single one of the environmental radicals who want the US to drill less are also on the far left of the political spectrum on every other issue, and want to weaken the US in any way they can. Considering their overwhelming bias, why would I take them seriously about anything?
That's when you start to notice people like Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg, environmentalists who are not radicals, and who clearly explain how the goals of the environmental loonies who dominate the conversation in the US media are quite harmful. The mainstream/leftist media refuses to grant them a voice, because their opinions fail to comport with the media's goals of weakening the United States. Same goes for the environmentalists who want to make use of nuclear energy. The media does not want you to know they exist.
But they do. Feel free to check out not only Reason and John Stossel, but also Lomborg, Shellenberger, Thomas Sowell, Jordan Peterson, the pro-nuclear environmentalists and many others who dare to put their own careers at risk by refusing to go along with the media's chosen narrative. There is plenty there for you to chew on. Lomborg, for example, notes that more people die each year globally from excess cold than from excess heat. As such, getting a degree or two warmer over the next 50 years hardly seems problematic.
Remember that the claim that 97% (or whatever) or scientists believe that global warming is a massive issue which requires an immediate and massive cutback in fossil fuel use is utterly, completely and absolutely false. The media makes is seem that way with their propaganda, but you should have already seen enough to know otherwise. And now I gave you plenty more to follow up on.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WalterPetrovic
You can be upset as Trump as you want, and I can also be, but that rather obviously doesn't equate with treason.
1. "Popular vote" - Irrelevant. You know that, I know that, Hillary knows that, and everyone who can read the Constitution knows that. Skip the red herrings.
2. "His incessant fighting" - Again, vague and irrelevant. You know that as well. That's twice that you just raised meaningless irrelevancies in order to try to change the topic.
3. "leading up to his pushing MAGATS into open rebellion" - Legally speaking? How so? Did he ever tell anyone to rush into Congress and disrupt the proceedings? No, he did not. Instead, he exhorted the crowd to "peacefully protest", and yes, that is a direct quote from January 6th. Trump's wild rhetoric in the two months following the election was exceedingly irresponsible and flat-out outrageous, but in no way does it meet the legal standard for incitement, any more or less than it does Bernie Sanders's rhetoric pushing the Congressional Baseball Shooter into his own terrible actions.
Furthermore, not a single individual who was arrested for January 6th-related actions has been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted.
Which means that you are now many steps short of concluding that Trump directly caused (he didn't) an insurrection (which no one has been charged with).
4. "violates his Presidential oath of Office" - If Trump did in fact violate his presidential oath of office, that is still not the same thing as treason. Nixon violated the oath, and was forced out as a result. Did anyone even accuse him of treason?
5. "Regardless how anyone want (sic) to paint this, it is treason." No, actually it is nothing of the sort, otherwise you would have been able to give a coherent explanation of why it is.
1
-
@WalterPetrovic
In short, you would like to redefine "treason" to "something which gets Walter D. Petrovic upset". Unfortunately for you the law doesn't work that way. Not one person has been charged with insurrection related to January 6th, let alone convicted. And Donald Trump has not been charged with anything at all. "Treason" is a major accusation - so major that not only does it have a legal definition in the dictionary, the founding fathers actually made a point of specifically defining it in the Constitution itself. Why? Because they didn't want the Walter D. Petrovics of the world to come along and start throwing out accusations of "treason" whenever they felt like it.
I have explained this point at length, and have given you plenty of opportunity to explain how Donald Trump crossed that threshhold, but you keep responding with nonsensical points about popular vote totals and the like.
What you are actually stumbling along trying to come up with is a definition of "incitement". But the problem there is threefold:
1. Legally speaking, Trump did not cross the line into incitement, in that he never asked anyone to get violent. "Incitement" has a very specific legal definition.
2. Even if Trump had been guilty of incitement, a charge which has not been leveled at him by any prosecutor, that is still far short of "treason", obviously.
3. By your definition, there are literally hundreds of Democrats who could and should be tried for treason as a result of terrible incidents such as the cold-blooded execution of five Dallas Police Officers and two more in New York City, the shooting at the Republican baseball practice in which Congressman Steve Scalise nearly died, and, most glaringly, the six months of rioting, murder and mayhem that took place in major, Democrat-run cities throughout the United States in 2020. Among those who would be guilty of "treason" by your definition would be: Former President Obama, current Vice President Kamala Harris (who was among several Democrat Senators who set up a bail fund for rioters), Senator Bernie Sanders, and hundreds of other elected officials, all of whom spread falsehoods leading to evil actions and, in the case of the 2020 riots, the destabilization of the United States, including a massive hike in violent crime that continues to this day.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Let's see. The president who presided over the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history with the insane Afghan pullout - which not only led to the deaths of 13 Americans and maiming of many more, it also led to the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghans as well as the enslavement of millions of Afghan women. Oh yes, and also led directly to Russia invading Ukraine, a war which has a death toll of half a million and counting. The same president who has opened the border wide for the Mexican cartel to use as a source for smuggling in criminals and drugs, as well as serially raping women. The president whose policies led directly to the highest inflation in two generations, wherein the average American family spends more than $700/month more now than they did two years ago. The president who has been unbelievably divisive despite promising to heal the country. The president who lies endlessly to everyone about everything, including lying to Americans who have lost family members to tragedy, when Biden lies to them about having gone through the same thing himself. The president who has illegally and immorally weaponized the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies while letting his own family get away with massive crimes. The president who has spent nearly the entire summer on vacation, but still hasn't found the time to visit East Palestine, despite promising to do so, and whose only comment on the Hawaii disaster after five days was to say "no comment". The president whose foreign policy weakness has encouraged Iran and their terrorist groups to kill many more innocents, then handed Iran billions in dollars to help create even more terrorism. The president who traded the "Merchant of Death" to the gangster Vladimir Putin, encouraging the latter to take more American hostages. And of course the same president who as Vice President sold out our country's foreign policy for millions of dollars in bribes.
And you think he's doing a bang-up job, right?
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
-
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
-
@SombraCheeks
You are simply unaware of the basic facts of the case.
Who writes a note such as was found that morning? A young man, presumably around early 20s. You know who doesn't? A 40 year old woman whose daughter just got killed. That second scenario doesn't even begin to make sense.
The fact that you don't know that they have the DNA of the intruder? That's basic stuff, really. He left his DNA behind all over: On the right and left of both the inside and outside of JonBenét's pajama bottoms, as well as on the inside of her panties, and also under her fingernails.
The rest of your comment similarly makes no sense. Did you expect the outside intruder to kidnap JonBenét while her parents were still awake? He used a stun gun on her and temporarily knocked her out, then cracked her in the skull when she unexpectedly woke up and cried out as he was trying to remove her from the house via the basement.
Again, all this is old news. There are numerous books, articles, and legal papers you could read, as well as documentaries you could watch, which addresses all this and much, much more. As I wrote above, the family was long ago cleared.
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
-
@hanfy130
Legal journals have written as follows:
"Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip."
The fact is that Jews have lived continuously in Israel for well over 3000 years. The claim that the Jews usurped Arab land is simply without basis. Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917 recognized that both Jews and Arabs had been living in the area in recent years, which led to several attempts to divvy up the land. Every version was accepted by the Jews, every one rejected by the Arabs. And then the Arab states got together to "push Israel into the sea" as they put it, in 1948 and 1967 and 1973, and failed each time. Then Egypt agreed to a peace treaty with Israel in the late 1970s, a major step forward, and other states eventually followed. Not all, of course - the Muslim Brotherhood (Iran, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc.) still swears that their goal - essentially their only goal - is the elimination of Israel, the elimination of all Jews, and eventually taking over the planet for Islam and installing universal Sharia Law.
One of the sources of confusion is the term "Palestinian", and references to "Palestine". What is now called Israel was called Palestine 100 years ago, but it was called Israel thousands of years ago. When the PLO terrorist group wanted to push the false narrative in the 1960s that the Jews had removed the Arabs from their land, they renamed some Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, and Jordanians as "Palestinians", as if they had been in "Palestine" before the Jews pushed them out. It was a claim made up out of whole cloth.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
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
-
@metalman666ization
You Austrians tend to be off the deep end. I particularly enjoy your claim that I'm the one cherrypicking, when the two claims you brought are the very definition, and that would be true even if they made sense.
Only a radical Austrian would prefer that the vaccination system shut down so we can watch measles, mumps, rhubella, and lord knows what other diseases run rampant, just so he can claim to be a pure libertarian. Sometimes government involvement makes sense, such as with law enforcement and firefighting. Trump had the federal government underwrite much of the Covid vaccine research, which has saved countless lives. I'm sure you were opposed, right? Rather have dead bodies everywhere in order to be a 100% pure Austrian, of course.
Anyone who knows the first thing about Reagan's presidency could not possibly claim that he did not deregulate. In fact, Reagan removed price controls on oil and gas, reduced restrictions on the financial services industry, and relaxed enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The Department of the Interior also opened large areas of public land for oil drilling.
Furthermore, there is no bigger regulation than limiting one's ability to make money with onerous taxes, which Reagan cut down to size.
I don't know which Austrian purist you are parroting here, but your ignorance is palpable.
1
-
1
-
@metalman666ization
No, unlike you I am a knowledgeable, rational, thinking person.
If asked about Reagan's legacy, not one person would raise the two issues you did among the top 100 of his presidency; the take on the first one is entirely misguided, and if the second one exists, I can't find it.
Reagan took a country which had ceased to believe in itself, which was at the mercy of the Soviet Union, and which had outrageously high (by US standards) inflation and unemployment, and saved the country, in short order, on all counts.
You listened to some libertarian wacko - some Ron Paul/John McAfee/Tom Woods type - and are parroting his claims while understanding very little.
In real life, Reagan cut taxes and regulations, as I specified above.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
@pubdigitalix
Well, you are correct that this interviewer throwing softballs doesn't do Sowell any favors. Back in his day, though, Sowell used to do tough interviews, and debate all comers, the opposite of Chomsky. Chomsky apparently is brilliant at linguistics, not that I would know, but his anti-American propaganda is a whole bunch of nonsense. His claims have been torn to shreds, but never to Chomsky directly, because the old linguist has absolutely refused to ever face a tough question in his life. Instead he preaches to his America-hating minions, who buy his BS wholesale. As to Sowell? He's written 50 books, and every single one is chock full of sources, so it's all backed up. You can watch Sowell's old debates and face-offs with tough interviewers from back in the 70s, 80s and 90s, some of which can be found here on YT. But you can't watch Chomsky's, because he was always too scared to do anything like that, lest he be exposed as the political fraud he is.
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
-
@TAS-gb5ph
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jinxterpinxter
If your point is that your smarminess matches your ignorance, then I agree. Want some, you know, actual facts?
Currently, the Israeli Supreme Court is the most powerful of the three branches of government, as opposed to how it works in other democracies. Israeli Supreme Court members appoint their own replacements, who keep their jobs for as long as they want. The Supreme Court can strike down any law they don't personally approve of, for any reason: Israel doesn't have a Constitution, so there is no chance of violating it. As such, the Supreme Court has turned into a monster. Something needs to change. I am not familiar enough with Netanyahu's plan to say what's good or bad about it, but the status quo is not working, that's for sure. And it seems highly unlikely that Netanyahu's own case would be affected, as that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So much of this reminds me of 6 year old JonBenét Ramsey. Police detective Steve Ramsey decided immediately that Patsy, JonBenét's mom, had killed JonBenét by mistake. The theory not only made no sense, it was physically impossible. Yet he spent all day, day after day, week after week, leaking one false story after another to the tabloids, as he tried to pressure JonBenét's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, to turn on each other. It's been nearly 30 years, but we still don't know who killed JonBenét, thanks to the incompetence of the Boulder PD. And because Steve Thomas spread blatant lies everywhere, many people still falsely blame the Ramseys for the death of little 6 year old JonBenét. In real life, the family was totally exonerated; we know with certainty that this crime was committed by someone who broke into the house. Yet the Boulder PD still refuses to give the case over to the FBI for genealogical genetic testing, despite John Ramsey begging them to do so and solve the case in his lifetime.
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
-
Let's see. The president who presided over the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history with the insane Afghan pullout - which not only led to the deaths of 13 Americans and maiming of many more, it also led to the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghans as well as the enslavement of millions of Afghan women. Oh yes, and also led directly to Russia invading Ukraine, a war which has a death toll of half a million and counting. The same president who has opened the border wide for the Mexican cartel to use as a source for smuggling in criminals and drugs, as well as serially raping women. The president whose policies led directly to the highest inflation in two generations, wherein the average American family spends more than $700/month more now than they did two years ago. The president who has been unbelievably divisive despite promising to heal the country. The president who lies endlessly to everyone about everything, including lying to Americans who have lost family members to tragedy, when Biden lies to them about having gone through the same thing himself. The president who has illegally and immorally weaponized the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies while letting his own family get away with massive crimes. The president who has spent nearly the entire summer on vacation, but still hasn't found the time to visit East Palestine, despite promising to do so, and whose only comment on the Hawaii disaster after five days was to say "no comment". The president whose foreign policy weakness has encouraged Iran and their terrorist groups to kill many more innocents, then handed Iran billions in dollars to help create even more terrorism. The president who traded the "Merchant of Death" to the gangster Vladimir Putin, encouraging the latter to take more American hostages. And of course the same president who as Vice President sold out our country's foreign policy for millions of dollars in bribes.
And you think he's doing a bang-up job, right?
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
-
@thejerrykitcher6667
Wikipedia has "Administrators" who decide what to do when editors disagree. Those Administrators are about 95% far left, with the other five percent non-political. Not one conservative to be found. And if an editor persists in trying to correct the record, they get suspended, and sometimes permanently banned.
To begin with, Wikipedia has a list of acceptable and non-acceptable sources. Every left-wing publication, from the New York Times to The Nation, to the New Yorker and Vanity Fair, is just fine. And every conservative publication is considered unreliable. You can find a video here on YT that John Stossel did on that topic. As a libertarian who loves spontaneous order, Stossel originally supported Wikipedia strongly, and even interviewed Jimmy Wales. Years later he came to realize what a leftist hellhole it is, and made a follow-up video correcting the record. I strongly recommend watching it (like nearly all Stossel videos, it's short).
Finally, even articles unrelated to politics are unreliable, because one or two people who care deeply about it will push everyone else out. I can give you examples, from history to sports, in which very interesting, worthwhile edits were immediately reversed for no reason outside of someone jealously guarding "his" page.
Yes, Wikipedia is an absolute joke.
1
-
1
-
@thejerrykitcher6667
Thank you for getting back to me. Stossel is good, isn't he? Yes, Wikipedia is a big part of the problem out there.
I can still see my comments. It frequently happens that an original post will be followed by replies far fewer in number than the amount claimed. (For example, it will say that there are eight replies, yet only four are visible to me.) I have seen numerous other commenters say that they experience the same. I don't understand how that all works, but YT, owned by Google, is certainly both left-wing and censorious. (I had a previous channel, with approximately 50 subscribers and thousands of comments over several years, unceremoniously deleted in its entirety by YT one day. Their official policy calls for three prior warnings before excommunication, yet I received none. When I protested that they had violated their own rules, I was told that my comments had been so egregious that I deserved to be removed entirely, their own policies notwithstanding, apparently. I was not told what specifically my offense(s) was/were.) (If you want a particularly absurd example of the radical left bias of YT's parent Google, look up the story of their own employee they fired and humiliated, James Damore.)
Yes, it gets somewhat exasperating having media (all types) overlords controlling the information availability on such an all-encompassing, wide basis. The predictable result, presumably intended, is that millions of people who consider themselves reasonable and open-minded honestly believe that the Democrats and the left are paragons of virtue while the Republicans and conservatives - not just Trump supporters - are morality-free purveyors of lies and deceit. Members of my family are in that category, and they are actually pleasant, rational people. But if one lives in a world in which all mainstream purveyors of information - from mainstream corporate media to social media - express that message, rational people who are not by nature inclined to conservative beliefs are simply never exposed to the counter-argument, and end up believing that there is none. This situation, to my mind, has clearly led to the most radical elements of the Trump-world - of which I am not a supporter - taking root. The extreme reaction to years of falsehood, propaganda and censorship from the powerful left has driven a significant minority off the edge, which in turn is then used by those who caused it - the powers that be on the left - to justify their take, as they portray all conservatives and Republicans as being part of, supportive of, or at least tolerant of the most extreme elements of the MAGA world (Jan 6th, election denial, etc.). But they choose to ignore how they themselves created this mess over the years, such as by portraying moderate Republicans as John McCain and Mitt Romney as the devil, or by falsely labeling six months of riots as "mostly peaceful protests". The result is that the media/social media has helped create radicals on both sides: Directly so on their own side with their false messaging of widespread racism/sexism/fill-in-the-blank-phobia, and indirectly by the blowback they've created with their harmful, slanderous claims.
Sorry I've gone on so long. Nice getting to know you here. Feel free to chime in again any time.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@jackcherbourg2899
1. The police at the Ramsey house did not realize that JonBenét had been struck on the head. Neither did the coroner's office, nor the coroner himself - until Dr. John Meyer ultimately peeled back her scalp. So how is it that Patsy thought JonBenét was dead? Shouldn't she have called an ambulance?
2. The assistant DA at the time, Bill Wise, was quoted as saying that the force used was sufficient to “bring down a 350 lb. Green Packers [sic] lineman”. How could a 60 lb. boy possibly have done such damage? (Remember that the slanderous CBS show used a boy far larger, yet required numerous takes to crack a fake skull in just the right way.)
3. Despite the massive damage to her skull (8.5" crack, a piece of her skull completely broken off) there was no blood anywhere. The top scientists concluded that she must have been strangled first. If so, how does the Burke theory work?
4. The top scientists also noted the various injuries to JonBenét's neck, which proved that she was a)alive when she was strangled, and b)consciously fought to remove the rope from her neck. How would you explain that?
5. The University of Boulder lab concluded that JonBenét had eaten a fruit salad - not plain pineapple. How does that fit into your theory?
6. Believing Burke did it means that the following got it wrong:
* The Federal Court
* The FBI
* Every member of the Boulder Police Department
* Two Boulder DAs
* The top homicide detective on the case
* The top FBI profiler
* The Special Prosecutor
* The psychopathy expert who worked the case
* The top DNA experts in the world
* The top experts in other related sciences
* The psychologists who interviewed Burke
...and numerous others.
Why would you think you picked up on something that everyone else explicitly ruled out?
7. CODIS only accepts high-level, identifiable DNA into its database. It accepted the DNA found in several spots on different surfaces of different clothing as belonging to a mix of two people: JonBenét plus one intruder. All Ramseys were ruled out as being a contributor to the mix. How do you explain that?
8. The same DNA was used to positively exclude numerous suspects, such as Michael Helgoth, Chris Wolf, Randy Simons, Glenn Meyer, Gary Oliva, John Mark Karr, Santa Bill McReynolds, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, Mervyn Pugh, and numerous others. If you believe that the DNA doesn't count, how could it have been used to clear anyone?
Please get back to me.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sixpence_None_The_Richer
Pennsylvania, as I'm sure you know, is considered the ultimate decider of this year's presidential election.
Yes, it would be wonderful if Dave McCormick could defeat Bob Casey Jr. for the Pa. Senate seat. Either way, the Senate is without question going to be Republican this coming term. Question is, will it be 51 GOP Senators or 55? It makes a big difference, particularly for two years down the road, when the Democrats will almost certainly win back some Senate seats in the 2026 elections. This year the Senate map massively favors Republicans, as the Democrats had a big year six years ago in 2018, and have more seats to defend. But the Republicans did better in 2020, and will probably lose a seat or two, maybe more in 2026, so it would be great if we could build up something like a 55-45 majority this time around.
And then there is the House. Currently Republican, it has, sorry to say, a pretty strong chance of going Democrat this year. I hope I'm wrong on that last part. It would be really nice if we could win the White House, Senate, and House next week, and then actually use it to help stabilize not only the US but also the free world, instead of getting hijacked by clowns like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, publicity hounds who don't mind wrecking everything so long as they can play to the lowest common denominator among the Maga idolators.
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
-
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
-
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
-
Actually, the rich are paying above 50% in taxes. I'm not rich, yet I'm paying around 50%. How's that? 22% federal income tax, 3% state income tax, $12k in property tax, plus sales tax, gas tax, tolls, water tax, phone tax, electricity tax, etc. etc. etc. We already live under democratic socialism. The Democrat Party is pushing full socialism at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The poll shows that 41% of 18-29 year olds find the assassination unacceptable, 24% somewhat acceptable, and 17% acceptable. Overall, 68% say unacceptable, 17% acceptable, and 16% unsure. Percentage-wise, that means that among the overall population, those who had an opinion were 80% not acceptable, 20% acceptable. Those who were most likely to find it acceptable were a)young, b)male, and c)Democrats.
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
-
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
-
This is hard to imagine for the younger folks, but when CNN started, they were known as the quasi-conservative alternative to the big three networks. Unlike the big three, all based in NYC, the theory was that being based in the South, in Atlanta, kept them independent. And the guy who started it, Ted Turner, was somewhat conservative at the time. Unfortunately, he went on to marry Hanoi Jane, and that was the end of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Friedman is a total ignoramus. He visits a country, talks to a couple of taxi drivers, then pretends to be an expert, and writes a book for the left. He gets away with it, in part, because many people don't know better. I heard him interviewed early in the Iraq War, and he had no idea what he was talking about. I'd read one book about Iraq - written by the famous Cockburn brothers, who happen to be beloved by the left - and it couldn't have been clearer that Friedman was making things up; his interviewer simply didn't know better. It wasn't even a lot of bias, just ignorance pretending to be an expert. Having read a single book, I already knew the subject matter far more deeply than Friedman did, who was just flailing, trying to sound like an expert despite being the opposite. So I called in and challenged Friedman, and he insulted me with something non-sensical, because he had no idea what to say.
He mostly writes stuff about Israel and the "Palestinians", and again, he is pretending to be knowledgeable, while largely repeating propaganda he heard before he ever visited the area. In short, he's a total fraud, pulling the wool over the eyes of a compliant media who choose to assume he knows the intricate facts, while he actually knows nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorinelson7523
Lol! You know nothing about politics, and nothing about economics. Raise taxes on corporations? That will lower revenue, and drive us into recession. And those taxes would be paid by...you, and all the other consumers. Like that idea? Next: Who is raising taxes on the elderly and the poor? No one, obviously.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Open your mind.
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
-
@joesloadeddiaper3007
1. The top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% combined. That's called paying vastly more than their "fair share".
2. Bernie the socialist is a capitalist when it comes to his own money. He used to rail against millionaires, until he became one himself. Now he owns three homes, but still cashes his paycheck as a Senator, and another paycheck from Burlington, Vt., as pension from when he was mayor. In short, he wants others to pay more, while he gets rich. Btw, he can make a donation to the US Government at the Treasury Department website any time he wants. What is he waiting for?
3. Socialism has failed always, everywhere, every time. If you think that socialism has worked in the Nordic countries, then you really should stop believing everything Bernie tells you. Try reading Nima Sanandaji's "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism" instead, which provides, you know, the facts.
4. Your claim that the IRS goes after those who make $40,000 while ignoring millionaires is preposterous. The bottom half in the US pays 3% of the taxes, the top half 97%. You really believe the IRS audits some guy making $40,000 who takes standard deductions? That obviously makes no sense. For what payoff, exactly? It is just a jealousy-based argument in your mind, for which you can provide no evidence.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Michael Hardwick
I wrote responses repeatedly, every one of which YT has automatically deleted. Anyone with access to the internet can easily find Ron Paul's long history of racist, anti-Semitic, and conspiracist pronouncements. He repeatedly praised David Duke, suggested that the "Jews" may have been behind the bombing of the World Trade Center, wrote that AIDS was intentionally created, compared Israel to the 1930s National Socialists, and more.
The US was isolationist leading up to both world wars. As a result, we were insufficiently prepared, particularly for WWII.
A strong, powerful, up-to-date military and a government ready and willing to use it is the #1 deterrent to other countries, and therefore the best way to avoid war, as well as the best way to minimize US casualties should war happen nonetheless.
As to Ron Paul's isolationism, that was an open part of his platform, as every reasonably-well informed person knows.
1
-
@noclue30
I wrote responses repeatedly, every one of which YT has automatically deleted. Anyone with access to the internet can easily find Ron Paul's long history of racist, anti-Semitic, and conspiracist pronouncements. He repeatedly praised David Duke, suggested that the "Jews" may have been behind the bombing of the World Trade Center, wrote that AIDS was intentionally created, compared Israel to the 1930s National Socialists, and more.
The US was isolationist leading up to both world wars. As a result, we were insufficiently prepared, particularly for WWII.
A strong, powerful, up-to-date military and a government ready and willing to use it is the #1 deterrent to other countries, and therefore the best way to avoid war, as well as the best way to minimize US casualties should war happen nonetheless.
As to Ron Paul's isolationism, that was an open part of his platform, as every reasonably-well informed person knows.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
1
-
1
-
@juliancate7089
Not my impression whatsoever.
Holmes blew smoke non-stop, and used both her connections and her youthful, attractive female charms to win people over.
Wall Street is forever trying to get in early on the next Big Thing, thus making gobs of money. Had her claims been accurate, her company had tremendous possibilities; meanwhile, the financial boys knew as much about her scientific claims as they do the history of quantum physics.
When Amazon went public in the mid-90s, media skeptics abounded, questioning the innate value of a five year old company which had never turned a profit. Meanwhile, some believers on Wall Street bought in, and went on to shovel in the profits. This type of story has repeated itself frequently in recent years. If you wait for a public company to be profitable, you're likely getting in too late to make any money.
As to Theranos, most of what I know comes directly or indirectly from John Carreyrou's reporting.
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
-
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
-
@jamesng7320
You seem to have ignored the prior comment I wrote to you.
Israel signed Oslo with the understanding that the "Palestinians" would turn from terrorists into a responsible polity, in exchange for which Israel would welcome them as a neighbor in good standing. The PA took the guns with which they had been armed by Israel and used them to radically increase terrorism, on the theory that Israel had capitulated to terrorism in 1993 by agreeing to Oslo, so ratcheting up the terrorism would gain them more concessions. That would be the intellectual argument, anyway. The emotional argument is far more straight forward - the "Palestinians" have been raised for generations, from the moment of birth, to despise all Jews and seek to kill them in any way possible, and no paper agreement was going to change that. That would be doubly true when Yasser Arafat was giving speeches in Arabic at home calling for more terrorism while telling the West he would do the opposite. And yes, the PA paying for terrorists, known as "pay for slay", and worshipping as heroes the most gruesome of those, that certainly doesn't sound like a government looking for peaceful conditions with its neighbor, does it?
Every Israeli who is old enough remembers the (year) 2000 Ramallah Lynching, which took place in a PA police station. That single incident alone tells you everything you would need to know. Beyond that, ask anyone what it was like living in Israel in the mid-to-late 1990s into the early 2000s, when city buses, pizzerias and wedding halls were getting bombed on a constant basis. Every single person in Israel lived in absolute fear, they were on guard every moment they were in public, and knew someone (and usually several people) who had died from a suicide bombing. And they all knew that this came directly from Oslo, and were wondering why they should ever trust those people again. Not only was life in Israeli cities living in pure, non-stop terror, but every evil event was celebrated widely throughout the West Bank with public displays, including dancing in the streets, toddlers dressed as terrorists with toy AK-47s, and candy passed on to children. The whole thing was unbelievably gruesome. Ever hear of the Sbarro's bombing, in the center of Jerusalem? A bunch of children murdered, others maimed, and wide celebrations throughout the West Bank. Condemnations? Crickets. And that was one horrendous example, but only one of hundreds, with thousands of Israeli civilians murdered overall. The carnage was non-stop.
I am not allowed by YT to post links. Everything I've written can be easily sourced online. If you somehow legitimately can not find even one item I've mentioned above, then let me know, and I can see whether or not I can point you in the right direction without getting my comment removed.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WanderingExistence
Holy lord, are you embarassing yourself. Are you unaware that "democracy" and "free market capitalism" are entirely intertwined? (I note that you haven't even bothered to identify your preferred alternative.) Since Malcolm Gladwell popularized the genre in the 1990s, and Freakonomics exploded onto the best-seller lists a few years later, hundreds of books of this type have been released. I'm glad you've read one of them, although you seem unaware of the gentleman's given name. (It's Morgan, by the way. Morgan Housel.) Similarly, you repeatedly reference "Vablen Goods", which also does you no favors, as the term is "Veblen", not "Vablen". Anyway, you have no basis for which to treat Morgan Housel as some of deity, when the guy wrote a book a whopping two years ago, and the book - hardly a bestseller - has both its fans and detractors, among the few people who have read it. Your only reference point is that you are among that group, and are seemingly unaware of anything else. Starting, of course, with the legendary Thomas Sowell, who has sold 100,000x as many books as Mr. Hausel has, and whom you falsely claim has been disproven, despite your utter ignorance of the man's beliefs, and your absolute inability to provide a scintilla of evidence for your remarkable claim, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.
Now, being the fool that you are, you will again respond with childish comments, including grade school nicknames, as some sort of substitute for knowledge or logic. You are fooling no one, of course, except yourself - if that. But with nowhere else to go, I have no doubt you will keep digging yourself further into a hole. Go right ahead.
1
-
@WanderingExistence
Yup, I figured you'd further embarass yourself, and you didn't disappoint. Twisting or misunderstanding my point (not sure which is worse), refusing to accept responsibility for your actions, lying about the nickname calling, and all while failing to articulate an opinion on economic worldview, while simultaneously refusing to admit that you lied when you called Sowell disproven. Instead you misdirect by attacking my in-class teaching skills, of which I can happily say you know nothing. And all because you were so damn proud of yourself that you actually read a book which no one heard of. Oh, well. A loser you are, and a loser you will remain. Your choice, your loss. I feel bad for your family.
1
-
1
-
@WanderingExistence
Holy lord, are you embarassing yourself. Since Malcolm Gladwell popularized the genre in the 1990s, and Freakonomics exploded onto the best-seller lists a few years later, hundreds of books on behavioral economics have been released. I'm glad you've read one of them, although you seem unaware of the gentleman's given name. (It's Morgan, by the way. Morgan Housel.) Similarly, you repeatedly reference "Vablen Goods", which also does you no favors, as the term is "Veblen", not "Vablen". Anyway, you have no basis for which to treat Morgan Housel as some of deity, when the guy wrote a book a whopping two years ago, and the book - hardly a bestseller - has both its fans and detractors, among the few people who have read it. Your only reference point is that you are among that group, and are seemingly unaware of anything else. Starting, of course, with the legendary Thomas Sowell, who has sold 100,000x as many books as Mr. Hausel has, and whom you falsely claim has been disproven, despite your utter ignorance of the man's beliefs, and your absolute inability to provide a scintilla of evidence for your remarkable claim, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.
Instead your entire worldview is based around the only book you've ever read in your life, and for which you have no context whatsoever.
Now, being the fool that you are, you will again respond with childish comments, including grade school nicknames, as some sort of substitute for knowledge or logic. You are fooling no one, of course, except yourself - if that. But with nowhere else to go, I have no doubt you will keep digging yourself further into a hole. Go right ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
@DharmaBum1984
That is a myth, helpfully propagated by the left. Fact is, the right believes in individual freedom, while the far left wants to hand over all controls to the government. The National Socialists in Germany in the 1930s had plenty in common with the Communists. (Notice the name "socialist".) The left takes a slightly more circuitous route towards handing over full control to the government and taking away individual rights, in that the left initially claims that they are for the people. Soon enough, though, the people have no rights, and an authoritarian government is in place. Ask those who lived in the USSR and much of the rest of Eastern Europe, as well as Cuba, Venezuela, etc. All those movements end up in the same, which is the far left - individual rights trumped by state control of everything. The right is on the side of individual freedom. Join the conservative side.
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
-
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@hollyweirdland940
Mar 5, 2019,
10:01am EST
|
30,072 views
What Socialized Medicine Looks Like
John C. Goodman
Contributor
Policy
I offer market-based healthcare solutions.
This article is more than 2 years old.
More From Forbes
0:00
Left-wing Democrats in Congress have decided on a new version of “Medicare for All.” Turns out its going to be nothing like the Medicare program seniors are used to. What they have in mind is what we see in Canada.
Everyone (except American Indians and veterans) will be in the same system. Health care will be nominally free. Access to it will be determined by bureaucratic decision making.
Here’s what to expect.
Overproviding to the Healthy, Underproviding to the Sick. The first thing politicians learn about health care is this: most people are healthy. In fact, they are very heathy – spending only a few dollars on medical care in any given year. By contrast, 50% of the health care dollars will be spent on only 5% of the population in a typical year.
Politicians in charge of health care, however, can’t afford to spend half their budget on only 5% of the voters, including those who may be too sick to vote at all. So, there is ever-present pressure to divert spending away from the sick toward the healthy.
In Canada and in Britain, patients see primary care physicians more often than Americans do. In fact, the ease with which relatively healthy people can see doctors is probably what accounts for the popularity of these system in both countries.
But once they get to the doctor’s office British and Canadians patients receive fewer services. For real medical problems, Canadians often go to hospital emergency rooms – where the average wait in Canada is four hours. In Britain, one of every ten emergency room patients leave without ever seeing a doctor.
A study by former Congressional Budget Office director June O’Neill and her husband Dave O’Neill found that:
The proportion of middle-aged Canadian women who have never had a mammogram is twice the U.S. rate.
Three times as many Canadian women have never had a pap smear.
Fewer than 20% of Canadian men have ever been tested for prostate cancer, compared with about 50% of U.S. men.
Only 10% of adult Canadians have ever had a colonoscopy, compared with 30% of US adults.
These differences in screening may partly explain why the mortality rate in Canada is 25% higher for breast cancer, 18% higher for prostate cancer, and 13% higher for colorectal cancer.
A study by Brookings Institution scholar Henry Aaron and his colleagues found that:
Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners as the U.S. and one-third as many MRI scanners.
The rate at which the British provide coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth of the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds of the U.S. rate.
The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients age 45 to 84 and nine times higher for patients 85 years of age or older.
We can see the political pressure to provide services to the healthy at the expense of the sick in our own country’s Medicare program. Courtesy of Obamacare, every senior is entitled to a free wellness exam, which most doctors regard as virtually worthless. Yet if elderly patients endure an extended hospital stay, they can face unlimited out-of-pocket costs.
Rationing by Waiting. Although Canada has no limits on how frequently a relatively healthy patient may see a doctor, it imposes strict limits on the purchase of medical technology and on the availability of specialists. Hospitals are subject to global budgets – which limit their spending, regardless of actual health needs.
In addition to having to wait many hours in emergency rooms, Canadians have some of the longest waits in the developed world for care that could cure diseases and save lives. The most recent study by the Fraser Institute finds that
In 2016, Canadians waited an average of 21.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner to receipt of treatment by a specialist – the longest wait time in over a quarter of a century of such measurements.
Patents waited 4.1 weeks for a CT scan, 10.8 weeks for an MRI scan, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.
Similarly, a survey of hospital administrators in 2003 found that:
21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman.
50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.
Jumping the Queue. Aneurin Bevan, father of the British National Health Service, declared, “the essence of a satisfactory health service is that rich and poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and wealth is not advantaged.” Yet, more than thirty years after the NHS was founded an official task force (The Black Report) found little evidence that the creation of the NHS had equalized health care access. Another study (The Acheson Report), fifty years after the NHS founding, concluded that access had become more unequal in the years between the two studies.
In Canada, studies find that the wealthy and powerful have significantly greater access to medical specialists than less-well-connected poor. High-profile patients enjoy more frequent services, shorter waiting times and greater choice of specialists. Moreover, among the nonelderly white population, low-income Canadians are 22% more likely to be in poor health than their U.S. counterparts.
These results should not be surprising. Rationing by waiting is as much an obstacle to care as rationing by price. It seems that the talents and skills that allow people to earn high incomes are similar to the talents and skills that are useful in successfully circumventing bureaucratic waiting lines.
No Exit. The worst features of the U.S. health care system are the way in which impersonal bureaucracies interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Those are also the worst features of Canadian medical care. In Canada, when patients see a doctor the visit is free. In the U.S., the visit is almost free – with patients paying only 10 cents out of pocket for every dollar they spend, on average. In both countries, people primarily pay for care with time, not with money. The two systems are far more similar than they are different.
In Britain, private sector medicine allows patients to obtain care they are supposed to get for free from government. Middle and upper-middle income employees frequently have private health insurance, obtained through an employer. A much larger number of Britons use private doctors from time to time. The rule seems to be, “If your condition is serious, go private.”
Canada, by contrast, has basically outlawed private sector medical services that are theoretically provided by the government. If doctors, patients and entrepreneurs think of better ways of meeting patient needs they have no way of acting on those thoughts.
This is where the U.S. system is so much better—even though, as in the Canadian system, U.S. Medicare pays doctors the same way it did in the last century, before there were iPhones and email messages. Many U.S. employer plans are just as bad.
But because U.S. employers are free to meet the needs of their employees rather than live under the dictates of a politically pressured bureaucracy, one of the fastest growing employee benefits is concierge care. For as little as $50 a month for a young adult, patients can have 24/7 access to a doctor by phone and email and all the normal services that primary care physicians provide.
Uber-type house calls, consultations by phone, email and Skype, cellphone apps that allow people to manage their own care and other innovations in telemedicine are taking some parts of the private sector by storm.
These are the kinds of innovations that would be outlawed if the congressional Democrats have their way.
For more on these and other issues, interested readers may want to consult my congressional testimony, delivered with Linda Gorman, Devon Herrick and Robert Sade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@schumanhuman
I keep writing the same points because you're too dense to get it. Have someone explain it to you. Perhaps a fourth grader will do.
The US not only underwrites much of the world's R&D expenses, but also its spending on medication. We in the US pay full price, and then some, while everyone else gets it below cost.
There are dozens of articles and studies that can be easily found online which show that waitlists in the UK, Canada, and other countries with socialized medicine can get outrageously long, and causes the deaths of many thousands. YT won't allow me to post links, but anyone can find them in a minute. Assuming they are honest enough to want to know the facts, anyway.
Two closing notes to this comment - your ELA skills, as represented by your comments, are disastrous. And your claim that you are done responding is apparently as worthless as your incoherent, foolish arguments.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@srtghost3842
You are absolutely, 100% correct.
The lying leftist media, in this video and everywhere else as well, has claimed that Florida's House Bill 1557, the "Parental Rights In Education" act, is an anti-LGBTQ, book censorship bill, which is an utterly false - even slanderous - claim. The leftist media wanted to destroy the reputation of Ron DeSantis when they thought he would be the nominee, as they labeled him "worse than Trump".
The average person is unaware that there is no bill called "Don't Say Gay", or even that HB 1557 doesn't include a word that could be implied as "don't say gay". Furthermore, not including wildly inappropriate material in a grade school library is in no way "censorship". No one stops parents from buying that garbage and giving it to their children directly.
So yes, every person claiming "hypocrisy" is unintentionally confirming the efficacy of the lying, radical left media's slanderous campaign against Ron DeSantis. These commenters truly don't realize that neither Ron DeSantis nor Florida is in no way censorious nor hostile to non-heterosexuals.
The radical leftist garbage media has been splitting apart this country for years with absolute lies aimed at destroying conservatives.
For anyone else reading this who thinks I'm wrong, show me one word I wrote that is inaccurate.
1
-
@srtghost3842
You are absolutely, 100% correct.
The lying leftist media, in this video and everywhere else as well, has claimed that Florida's House Bill 1557, the "Parental Rights In Education" act, is an anti-LGBTQ, book censorship bill, which is an utterly false - even slanderous - claim. The leftist media wanted to destroy the reputation of Ron DeSantis when they thought he would be the nominee, as they labeled him "worse than Trump".
The average person is unaware that there is no bill called "Don't Say Gay", or even that HB 1557 doesn't include a word that could be implied as "don't say gay". Furthermore, not including wildly inappropriate material in a grade school library is in no way "censorship". No one stops parents from buying that garbage and giving it to their children directly.
So yes, every person claiming "hypocrisy" is unintentionally confirming the efficacy of the lying, radical left media's slanderous campaign against Ron DeSantis. These commenters truly don't realize that neither Ron DeSantis nor Florida is in no way censorious nor hostile to non-heterosexuals.
The radical leftist garbage media has been splitting apart this country for years with absolute lies aimed at destroying conservatives.
For anyone else reading this who thinks I'm wrong, show me one word I wrote that is inaccurate.
1
-
1
-
@srtghost3842
You are absolutely, 100% correct.
The lying leftist media, in this video and everywhere else as well, has claimed that Florida's House Bill 1557, the "Parental Rights In Education" act, is an anti-gay, book censorship bill, which is an utterly false - even slanderous - claim. The leftist media wanted to destroy the reputation of Ron DeSantis when they thought he would be the nominee, as they labeled him "worse than Trump".
The average person is unaware that there is no bill called "Don't Say Gay", or even that HB 1557 doesn't include a word that could be implied as "don't say gay". Furthermore, not including wildly inappropriate material in a grade school library is in no way "censorship". No one stops parents from buying that garbage and giving it to their children directly.
So yes, every person claiming "hypocrisy" is unintentionally confirming the efficacy of the lying, radical left media's slanderous campaign against Ron DeSantis. These commenters truly don't realize that neither Ron DeSantis nor Florida is in no way censorious nor hostile to non-heterosexuals.
The radical leftist garbage media has been splitting apart this country for years with absolute lies aimed at destroying conservatives.
For anyone else reading this who thinks I'm wrong, show me one word I wrote that is inaccurate.
1
-
This whole video itself is a perfect example of how leftist the media is. They totally downplayed down Dan Rather's situation, while wildly overstating those of Megyn Kelly, Chris Harrison, Rush Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek, Lara Logan, Rick Sanchez, Glen Kuiper, and Sharon Osborne. Those last eight were mistreated, some a little and some wildly so, so then here comes Mojo to stab them in the back even more.
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
-
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
-
@eddieokpara3549
The fact that the UN, a pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism, anti-Jewish outfit says anything is utterly meaningless.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
And those are the facts.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
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
-
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn mess.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
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
-
@tolowokere
You are absolutely, 100% correct.
The lying leftist media, in this video and everywhere else as well, has claimed that Florida's House Bill 1557, the "Parental Rights In Education" act, is an anti-LGBTQ, book censorship bill, which is an utterly false - even slanderous - claim. The leftist media wanted to destroy the reputation of Ron DeSantis when they thought he would be the nominee, as they labeled him "worse than Trump".
The average person is unaware that there is no bill called "Don't Say Gay", or even that HB 1557 doesn't include a word that could be implied as "don't say gay". Furthermore, not including wildly inappropriate material in a grade school library is in no way "censorship". No one stops parents from buying that garbage and giving it to their children directly.
So yes, every person claiming "hypocrisy" is unintentionally confirming the efficacy of the lying, radical left media's slanderous campaign against Ron DeSantis. These commenters truly don't realize that neither Ron DeSantis nor Florida is in no way censorious nor hostile to non-heterosexuals.
The radical leftist garbage media has been splitting apart this country for years with absolute lies aimed at destroying conservatives.
For anyone else reading this who thinks I'm wrong, show me one word I wrote that is inaccurate.
1
-
@tolowokere
You are absolutely, 100% correct.
The lying leftist media, in this video and everywhere else as well, has claimed that Florida's House Bill 1557, the "Parental Rights In Education" act, is an anti-LGBTQ, book censorship bill, which is an utterly false - even slanderous - claim. The leftist media wanted to destroy the reputation of Ron DeSantis when they thought he would be the nominee, as they labeled him "worse than Trump".
The average person is unaware that there is no bill called "Don't Say Gay", or even that HB 1557 doesn't include a word that could be implied as "dsg". Furthermore, not including wildly inappropriate material in a grade school library is in no way "censorship". No one stops parents from buying that garbage and giving it to their children directly.
So yes, every person claiming "hypocrisy" is unintentionally confirming the efficacy of the lying, radical left media's slanderous campaign against Ron DeSantis. These commenters truly don't realize that neither Ron DeSantis nor Florida is in no way censorious nor hostile to non-heterosexuals.
The radical leftist garbage media has been splitting apart this country for years with absolute lies aimed at destroying conservatives.
For anyone else reading this who thinks I'm wrong, show me one word I wrote that is inaccurate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tolowokere
You are absolutely, 100% correct.
The lying leftist media, in this video and everywhere else as well, has claimed that Florida's House Bill 1557, the "Parental Rights In Education" act, is an anti-LGBTQ, book censorship bill, which is an utterly false - even slanderous - claim. The leftist media wanted to destroy the reputation of Ron DeSantis when they thought he would be the nominee, as they labeled him "worse than Trump".
The average person is unaware that there is no bill called "Don't Say Gay", or even that HB 1557 doesn't include a word that could be implied as "don't say gay". Furthermore, not including wildly inappropriate material in a grade school library is in no way "censorship". No one stops parents from buying that garbage and giving it to their children directly.
So yes, every person claiming "hypocrisy" is unintentionally confirming the efficacy of the lying, leftist media's slanderous campaign against Ron DeSantis. These commenters truly don't realize that neither Ron DeSantis nor Florida is in no way censorious nor hostile to non-heterosexuals.
The leftist garbage media has been splitting apart this country for years with absolute lies aimed at destroying conservatives.
For anyone else reading this who thinks I'm wrong, show me one word I wrote that is inaccurate.
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
-
@BNF5005
I disagree, period. Ben certainly knows her general political views. I doubt he knows what she has said about Tucker Carlson, but even if he does? They are not there to have that conversation. It is obvious that you are a big fan of Tucker, as you keep going back to that point. Breaking news: Tucker Carlson is incredibly dishonest, and routinely slanders people he talks to or about by pulling things way out of context and not allowing a response from the person he is slandering. I have no clue what Ana said about Tucker, but let us not pretend that Tucker is an angel. He is the mirror image of Cenk, which is to say that you can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth. Both Tucker and Cenk will say absolutely anything that endears them to their audience, and couldn't care less if any of it is true. But again, even if she said false things about Tucker - I wouldn't know - that was and is not the point of their discussion.
To the larger issue: Saying that we should refuse to have civil conversations with the other side is totally, completely off base. Every single conservative personality you know has and/or does interact with the other side. Tucker used to face off with Paul Begala every night on "Crossfire", a show which I believe aired on CNN, of all places. The Daily Wire hosts, plus Crowder, and Charlie Kirk, and everyone else, they all go to universities and take questions from anyone and everyone. As. They. Should. Candace has had radical leftists for one-on-one conversations in her studio. Matt spoke to all sorts of trans radicals during interviews for "What Is A Woman". Refusing to engage with the other side is something that leftists like George Soros and Noam Chomsky do, because they are gutless worms who are unable to defend their awful beliefs. We have no need and no reason to not engage with those on the other side, because we have the facts on our side.
Despite what people with extreme views on both sides believe, the people whose policy prescriptions you or they believe are destroying the country are not led by their determination to wreck the US nor by evil impulses; they just disagree about basically everything. By talking to them directly in civil discourse, you a)might convince them of something, which actually happened at least once when Ben brought Ana around on an issue, b)learn what the other side believes, thus gaining a better understanding of the issue and how to approach those with whom one disagrees, and c)certainly have a real chance of gaining converts among the audience.
1
-
@BNF5005
1. Let me start out by apologizing: Regarding Tucker Carlson, I confused you with a couple of other commenters on this thread. I am sorry about that.
2. I never wrote that Ben doesn't know what TYT is about generally, but that he wouldn't know specifically what was said on some episode of theirs, as he is obviously not watching their shows with any regularity. Of course Ben knows what TYT is. And as I'm sure you know, he has had public conversations/debates with Ana multiple times, and also debated Cenk at Politicon (or whatever it's called).
3. I can't quite figure out where you're going regarding the point about the tone of interactions with the left. I would assume that we agree that even someone like Matt would never use the tone he uses in his show when speaking directly with a leftist. Say, for example, that Ana Kasparian contacts Matt today and asks to have a friendly, public conversation/debate. I am pretty certain he would agree to it, right? During that conversation, do you really believe that he would speak as forcefully as he did here? We must all assume good faith on the part of our adversaries, and treat them civilly. If the debate adversary gets personal and nasty, then one can respond more strongly, while (hopefully) not losing one's temper, which would not be of benefit. But to start a conversation with a willing Ana Kasparian (or anyone else) by telling her that she is advocating child abuse while wrecking the country and causing suicide? Yeah, that's not the way to have that interaction. I don't necessarily think that's what you mean, but if it isn't then I don't really understand what you are advocating.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@mikeparker6322
I was certain Trump would choose a woman or a minority. He didn't, and he won, beating a woman. McCain chose a woman, and no one cared. Mondale ran with a woman in 1984, and lost 49 states to 1. Kamala Harris got crushed in the primaries last year, despite being a woman of color. Clarence Thomas was slandered horribly when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
Obama won because he was intelligent, good looking, and very smooth, while Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Douglas Wilder went nowhere in their attempts to win the Democrat nomination for president.
The list goes on: That stuff is usually quite overrated. On the rare occasions it matters, it is only when the Democrat candidate is the appropriate minority. As I noted above, the leftist media saves their worst and most vicious slander for conservatives of color. Have you noticed what they said about Winsome Sears in the last few days? There is literally nothing negative about her, but that doesn't stop the leftist slanderers in the media.
Although Tim Scott is respected on Capitol Hill as a quiet, hard-working, intelligent, well-informed, and professional individual, the media would paint him to be the total opposite. We know why: Successful conservative minorities spells doom for the left's false narrative, so they resort to anything and everything, no matter how vile, in order to protect their brand.
I would love Scott as a VP candidate in 2024 (or beyond), and would prefer a more aggressive sort on top of the ticket, such as Tom Cotton. But either way, I don't think color or gender will sway the election.
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
-
@NanchiPan
Tony Timpa and Daniel Shaver were white guys who were killed by incompetent, overaggressive police officers. Justine Damond was a white woman, unarmed and in pajamas, who was blown away by a black cop near where Derek Chauvin kneeled on George Floyd's neck for nine minutes. Yet George Floyd became a household name worldwide, but no one in the US can tell you who Justine Damond was. Why? Media attention.
Just because the two parties are different races doesn't mean the incident must be racial. In fact, the Derek Chauvin prosecutor explicitly said at trial that he had no evidence saying that his case was about race. The media, though, likes to run with stories that fit their narrative, ignoring the actual facts in the process.
There are 800,000 police officers in the US, so it is unsurprising that some are going to be lousy. What is surprising is how infrequently innocents die by cop - it is statistically a very rare event. Contrast with deaths by medical error, which is reported to be north of 250,000 a year in the US.
The statistics show that unarmed black people are killed by cops at a rate far lower than are unarmed whites. But the mainstream media conveniently ignores that fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a prime example of how far left the media is. This show could have been produced by the Democrat Party and sounded no different. Did Chuck Todd forget to ask Al Gore why he flies around the world in private jets? Or why the US should unilaterally disarm on energy while the Saudis, Russians and Chinese produce it instead? And why we should stop producing if it means that the globe will be at most 1/2 degree cooler in 100 years, because most of the world will keep producing, in a much dirtier fashion, and will also largely take up the slack? And how about asking about the dead bodies in the streets of Ukraine while Europe continues to pour money into Russia? Europe has to buy Russian gas because they aren't producing their own energy, and the result is an outlaw Russia state and dead Ukranians. Is that worth it? More people die every year worldwide from excessive cold than from excesssive heat. Massive swaths of land, such as Greenland, most of Canada, and many other landmasses are essentially empty; migration is always possible in an absolute worse-case scenario. Long before that, though, mitigation has been known to work wonders. And science is continually finding ways to deal with carbon issues and the like, as well as new, cleaner ways of accessing fossil fuels. Meanwhile, people are unable to afford food and medicine because of inflation caused by fuel shortages, due to "green energy" policies which is raising the cost of energy by leaps and bounds, affecting the cost of absolutely everything. Does anyone really believe that causing high prices, war, and world turmoil is worth it in exchange for the small possibility of the earth being half a degree cooler in 100 years? Next - Even if Al Gore's predictions off disaster made in 1992 are coming true, which is a wild exaggeration, how about all the previous predictions - made by Gore and others - which were entirely wrong? Do those not count? There are other questions, but that gives you a good idea.
I'm sure Chuck Todd just forgot to ask.
And that's just the first few minutes of the program. This is representative of the one-sidedness of the media beginning to end, every week. Leftist propaganda.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@jackderipper2233
Six months of daily riots "mostly peaceful protests", egged on by Democrats and the mainstream media. The most costly riots in American history. And Democrat politicians, Kamala Harris among them, promoted a fund which bailed rioters out of prison.
One member of Congress advocated getting in the face of political adversaries. That was a Democrat - Maxine Waters.
Someone tried to murder numerous Congressmen, and nearly killed Steve Scalise. He was inspired to do so by Bernie Sanders's rhetoric.
A member of the Supreme Court was targeted for assassination. Bret Kavanaugh was marked by a member of the left. This came after Kavanaugh was publicly threatened by Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Five police officers were assassinated by a BLM supporter angry about police killings of black men, an issue reported on endlessly by the mainstream media. Statistics clearly show that whites are disproportionately killed by police. The leftist narrative is a lie, but the five Dallas officers are dead nonetheless.
Respected, Nevada-based long-time journalist Jeff German, age 69, was stabbed to death, allegedly by a politician he was covering, 45 year old Rob Telles, who faces the death penalty.
Shall I continue?
Meanwhile, the following is a list of elected Republicans who supported the invasion of the Capitol, a terrible incident which lasted three hours total:
(crickets)
And those are the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertnobles8189
As I figured - you are repeating propaganda supplied by the terrorists, without having a clue what you talking about. As anyone with any knowledge of the region understands, checkpoints are necessary when people are routinely smuggling in bombs and attempting mass murder against civilians, particularly targeting children. Journalists are never attacked by Israel, which allows the media in freely, although a small number of journalists have been hit in the crossfire, which happens in every single war. Note that Israel allows the media free access, while the "Palestinians" allow in almost none, and heavily censor reports of those who are allowed in. Now, why would that be? Think about it.
I'm curious if you also support ISIS and al-Qaeda, and oppose the United States. How far does your support of terrorism go? Because by any measure, the Israelis are vastly more careful to avoid civilians casualties on their enemies' side than any other country's military is, and that includes the United States' military. (As opposed to the "Palestinians", who deliberately target civilians, especially children, and intentionally place their own children in harm's way for propaganda purposes. Are you okay with that?) Did you also support the 9/11 attacks?
1
-
@robertnobles8189
In short, you're tapping out because I exposed you as an ignorant fraud. You couldn't answer a single point I made or question I asked above, because the facts don't fit your preferred, utterly false narrative.
I labeled terrorists as terrorists because they are. Nowhere did I write that all the "Palestinians" are terrorists. The majority, however, support Hamas, a known, vicious terrorist group, over the Palestinian Authority (Fatah), which is also a terrorist group but slightly less evil.
The reason I put "Palestinian" in quotes is because it is a term invented in the 1960s by terrorist Yasser Arafat and his cronies as propaganda, to help further the fake accusation that the Arabs had been living in Palestine before the Jews supposedly just moved in. Prior to the early 1960s and Yasser Arafat, the term "Palestinian" was not used for any Arab peoples, period. Crack open a history book some time.
The absurd allegation you made that Israel treats the "Palestinians" as subhuman is not only patently false, it is the exact opposite of the truth. As I laid out above, Arabs in Israel have full rights as citizens, and work side-by-side with their Israeli counterparts in every single field. Meanwhile, "Palestinians" in the West Bank and Gaza teach their children from the start that Jews are "the sons of monkeys and pigs", and all of them must be annihilated. This is hardly a secret.
As to the endless war of terrorism against Israel, it is the "Palestinians" who openly - they proudly announce it - target women and children, blowing up buses and pizza shops and wedding halls whenever they can. Yet people like yourself wonder why Israel needs to set up checkpoints for Arabs coming in to work in Israel. What would you prefer? That they let in murderers and suicide bombers to target kindergartens? You might like that idea, bit reasonable people understand that no country would do that. Israel does allow in thousands of workers daily. Why? They could just shut the doors, you know. Why do the Arabs come in every day if life is so hard? Why not work at home?
Aside from openly targeting civilians, the "Palestinians" intentionally place their own civilians in harm's way, shooting off rockets from the most dense civilian areas, so that they can blame Israel when a rocket destroyer kills a civilian. Arab terrorist routinely grab a child when they go to set off rockets, as they know Israel won't shoot at them if there is a child in the way. And if a mistake happens? Then the "Palestinians" celebrate their own dead baby and run to the media with their propaganda victory.
When it comes to the war against the terrorists, Israel uses unbelievable restraint in choosing targets, which is why the "Palestinians" continue to use civilian neighborhoods as areas for rocket launches.
British Colonel Richard Kemp, who fought under NATO and the UN, and also commanded British forces in Afghanistan, said the following:
"THE IDF IS THE MOST MORAL ARMY IN THE HISTORY OF WARFARE."
And yet you claim that it is Israel that targets civilians and journalists. What an unbelievably stupid and false claim.
The fact is, Israel is a democracy wherein Arabs live as full citizens and full participants in the economy and life of the country, while any Jew who steps foot into the West Bank or Gaza is in imminent danger of being killed by the first "Palestinian" he meets.
The fact is, facing an evil enemy which specifically aims its terrorism exclusively at civilians, and especially children, Israel exercises incredible restraint, to its own detriment.
Every single word I wrote here is a fact, just as is every word I wrote earlier in this thread. You couldn't respond to my earlier recitation of the facts, however, just as you won't be able to respond to everything I listed here: Because you have no facts, but instead prefer to slander the only Middle Eastern democracy, the most moral military in world history, who is forced to defend itself against vile terrorists.
Your worldview is hideously warped. Ask yourself why that is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is no bigger RINO than Donald Trump. He is not a conservative, and he couldn't care less about the Party, nor about the Country. He backed garbage candidates who pledged loyalty to him, which is why we lost the Senate, and nearly lost the House as well. McConnell spent over $200m on GOP Senate races. Trump? After fundraising over $100m from regular Americans two years ago, convincing them that he would use it to overturn the 2020 election results, he instead pocketed the money. And then spent less than 1/10th on GOP candidates than Mitch did. As to McCarthy, he is not my favorite, but he traveled non-stop for months all over the US to help Republican candidates, while Trump instead attacked Republicans on his "Truth Social", and used campaign rallies that were supposed to be about the local candidates to instead talk endlessly about himself, at times even making fun of the candidate he was there to ostensibly support.
Trump Cultists began following politics in 2015. For those of us who have been around for longer, we know that no one alive today has done as much for the conservative movement as Mitch McConnell has.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So much of this reminds me of 6 year old JonBenét Ramsey. Police detective Steve Ramsey decided immediately that Patsy, JonBenét's mom, had killed JonBenét by mistake. The theory not only made no sense, it was physically impossible. Yet he spent all day, day after day, week after week, leaking one false story after another to the tabloids, as he tried to pressure JonBenét's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, to turn on each other. It's been nearly 30 years, but we still don't know who killed JonBenét, thanks to the incompetence of the Boulder PD. And because Steve Thomas spread blatant lies everywhere, many people still falsely blame the Ramseys for the death of little 6 year old JonBenét. In real life, the family was totally exonerated; we know with certainty that this crime was committed by someone who broke into the house. Yet the Boulder PD still refuses to give the case over to the FBI for genealogical genetic testing, despite John Ramsey begging them to do so and solve the case in his lifetime.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
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
-
@rxw101
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is not there.
The term "Palestinian" is false, recently made up for political purposes.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hindreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
#FactsMatter
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Howard Stern says Trump backed Iraq War in 2002
By Samantha Reyes, CNN
Updated 11:04 PM EDT,
Thu September 29, 2016
Stern said Trump was "kinda for the Iraq War" and "us going into Iraq"
Washington (CNN)
Howard Stern confirmed Tuesday that Donald Trump expressed support for the Iraq War on his radio show in 2002 -- a claim Trump has denied despite a show recording of him offering at least measured backing.
The shock jock -- whose interview was referenced during Monday night's presidential debate -- told his listeners that Trump was "kinda for the Iraq War" and "us going into Iraq."
The interview was brought up because Trump "was saying he wasn't really for it, so they were forced to mention my name," Stern said.
Stern added that it was "kind of thrilling" to be mentioned at a presidential debate. His remarks were first reported by BuzzFeed Thursday.
A message left with Trump's campaign Thursday night seeking response to Stern's comments was not immediately returned.
The GOP presidential nominee has repeatedly said he opposed the Iraq War from before its launch, drawing a sharp contrast with his Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize the war as a senator in 2002.
But the Stern interview, in which he tepidly expressed support for the invasion, remains the only public remarks he made on the matter before the war began in March 2003.
"Yeah, I guess so," Trump said in the fall of 2002 when asked by Stern if he supported an invasion. "You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly."
When Clinton brought it up Monday, Trump first interrupted her by saying "wrong" and then went on to deny his support.
"I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out," Trump pointedly told moderator Lester Holt.
"The record shows otherwise," Holt responded.
"The record does not show that," replied Trump, who said he also told Fox News' Sean Hannity he opposed the war but the conversation was never on the record.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@puckerupbuttercup1980
Yup! I know it well. My stalker harassed us - me, mostly, but also family - for years. It steadily got worse, but I was told that no Order of Protection could be issued until he committed a serious criminal act, such as sending me to a hospital. It was very predictable, and then it happened: He sent me to the hospital, and finally got arrested. Unfortunately, I did too: For defending myself, really. Charges against me were completely dropped, but spending 18 hours in custody was not fun. The stalker pled down to a lower charge, and we got a two year order of protection against him. He violated it whenever he felt like it, and then the Police would arrest him, and then he'd get released within three or four hours, and all charges eventually dropped. It was infuriating. So before the two year OP ran out, we moved, telling almost no one before we left, in a neighborhood where we knew hundreds of people. The whole thing is absurd. When will the law deal with stalking? It is a very serious issue, but few notice or care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gianni_schicchi
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shawnpatton3795
YT automatically deletes comments with any links attached, in most cases. Certainly in my case.
Self-reported data is essentially meaningless. It tells you how people answer questions when they are expected to answer a certain way.
Certainly, rating a country's economic system based upon the self-reported happiness of its citizens or residents simply doesn't work at all. Perhaps Norwegians are just happy people under any circumstance, as per their culture? If you stuck Americans into Norway, where the average temperature is 100 below zero on a warm day, and you gave them all sorts of goodies for free, would they self-report being happy? Doubtful.
Anyway, Sanandaji's work is as relevant today as the day it was published. It does apples-to-apples comparisons, not bananas-to-sewing-machines as you raised, and proves incontrovertably that democratic socialism is a train wreck everywhere it is tried.
If you are truly interested in learning, then not only should you read Sanandaji's book, you should also study Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman. Sowell's "Basic Economics" is available in audiobook form for free right here on YT, along with many other works of his. (He seems to not care about protecting his intellectual property, as there are numerous channels devoted to reproducing his work, and none are ever hit with a copyright strike.) Milton Friedman can also be found all over YT.
What one gets from Friedman and Sowell is that every government program begun inevitably creates far more problems than it solves.
What one gets from Sanandaji is that the Scandinavian countries have proven that over and over without intending to.
1
-
1
-
@shawnpatton3795
1. Of course it is based upon self reporting. What else would it be based upon? Anyway, go back and check the studies that you are quoting.
2. Your comment contradicts itself within a few words. Re-read it.
As to divorce, money being its source is a total myth. Fights over money are based upon other, deeper factors, as the psychology experts note. By the way, what is the divorce rate in Hollywood? 95%?
Fact is, if you teach yourself to be miserable, you will be. That sort of thing is quite fashionable these days in the US and various other Western countries. The members of the "victim groups" hollering the loudest about how awful life is? Those are usually the fabulously successful ones.
Just last week, for example, CNBC published an article by E. Elisabet Lahti, PhD, an applied psychology researcher, titled "Finland is home to the world’s happiest people. Their No. 1 secret is this 500-year-old mindset, says psychology expert". Got it?
3. History agrees with Winston Churchill.
4. That makes no sense. You would rather be poorer as long as everyone else is, rather than be richer but less wealthy than the billionaires? How envious can one be to rather live a worse life as long as they can make everyone else miserable as well?
**
I will again encourage you to open your mind. Read the CNBC article I mentioned above. Read Nima Sanandaji. Read or watch Thomas Sowell and/or Milton Friedman. This stuff is settled, factually speaking.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is not there.
The term "Palestinian" is false, recently made up for political purposes.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hindreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
I hope you find this useful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So much of this reminds me of 6 year old JonBenét Ramsey. Police detective Steve Ramsey decided immediately that Patsy, JonBenét's mom, had killed JonBenét by mistake. The theory not only made no sense, it was physically impossible. Yet he spent all day, day after day, week after week, leaking one false story after another to the tabloids, as he tried to pressure JonBenét's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, to turn on each other. It's been nearly 30 years, but we still don't know who killed JonBenét, thanks to the incompetence of the Boulder PD. And because Steve Thomas spread blatant lies everywhere, many people still falsely blame the Ramseys for the death of little 6 year old JonBenét. In real life, the family was totally exonerated; we know with certainty that this crime was committed by someone who broke into the house. Yet the Boulder PD still refuses to give the case over to the FBI for genealogical genetic testing, despite John Ramsey begging them to do so and solve the case in his lifetime.
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
-
@coolioso808
You are bringing a leftist predisposition into this conversation, an approach antithetical to the rules of economics grounded in historical-based evidence.
Prior to the introduction of the free market and the resultant industrial revolution, poverty was common and widespread, living conditions lousy, and life expectancy short. Children sometimes died in childbirth, and occasionally their mothers did as well. Child mortality was very high. War and slavery was the normal order of the day. Millions died of starvation and basic disease.
Along came Adam Smith, the American experiment, and the Industrial Revolution, and the result is a world entirely unrecognizable to nearly all prior generations. Wealth is not shared but created. Nations that have adopted the free market approach experience unfathomable wealth, with even the very poorest living lives of comfort - even decadence - as compared to their forebears of merely a century earlier, not to mention a millenium.
There. That is your basic economic history lesson.
Thomas Sowell is everpresent throughout the internet, and certainly all over YouTube. Many channels can be found devoted to his teachings, none of which Dr. Sowell is attached to, or presumably even knows about. His camp appears to be uninterested in intellectual property concerns, the result of which is that not only can many Sowell speeches and interviews be found on YT, even a number of his audiobooks can be found here. Go listen to "The Thomas Sowell Reader", or "Basic Economics", or any other of his books, all of which are both educational and entertaining.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
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
-
@tomkillip9912
Donald Trump is the polar opposite of Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a patriotic American and a real gentleman. He wanted to be president so he could save the US from the terrible downward path it was headed on. Only the most political citizens could dislike Reagan personally, as he was a genuine, sweet, loving person, who cared deeply for this country. And when Reagan wasn't busy saving the country, he got along well with people on the other side of the aisle, most famously with Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, who blocked Reagan's legislation every time he could but came to the Oval Office for drinks once the workday was over.
Donald Trump could not possibly be more different. He couldn't care less about the United States; for Trump, it is all about feeding his fragile, narcissistic, childish ego. Trump lies non-stop, and picks personal fights with not only Democrats but with Republicans as well (Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis are just two examples of thousands). Reagan drew votes from the centrists and moderates, which is how he won two landslides. Trump's personal repulsiveness cost him not only the 2020 election by driving away centrists and moderates, he then cost us the Senate as well as many House seats through his meddling in the midterms, as he put his own personal feelings ahead of what was best for the party and the country.
By the way, Reagan served in the military during World War II to the best of his ability, somewhat limited by a health issue. Trump's father used his money amd connections to have Trump dodge the draft on the false basis of "bone spurs", sending some poor kid without Trump's privilege to fight and possibly die in his place.
Futhermore, Trump's shocking ignorance on basic policy stands in glaring contrast to Reagan, who was knee deep in policy details and wrote many of his own speeches earlier in his political career.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
@theviewfinder8923
From thousands of miles away, you have no idea what is going on here, but pontificate nonetheless.
The radical left controls academia, media and Hollywood in the US, and put out their chosen narrative, despite it being in contradiction of the facts. Being thousands of miles away, you see the propaganda and buy into it, because you lack the foundation to know better.
The evidence is clear, and incontrovertible. If you would like to educate yourself, try reading or watching Thomas Sowell, the brilliant economist and social critic who deals in facts and evidence, not leftist propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrcrc10
Not only are you wrong, I suspect that you are a leftist here to troll. Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe not.
Turning normal kids into LGBTQIA+2S etc. for political purposes is evil, and it is harmful for those children. Yes, that is child abuse.
The midterms were a GOP debacle for two reasons, as every individual with a brain knows:
1. Trump
2. Abortion
Notice what is not on that list? The fight to defend America, and particularly its children, from woke nonsense. The woke agenda is extremely unpopular, which should have been enough for a 2022 landslide, except that Trump came flying in to save the Democrats, with a major assist to the Dobbs decision.
You clearly are extremely biased against DeSantis, for whatever reason, which is why you are here writing nonsense.
1
-
1
-
@MichaelSSmith-hs5pw
The military was opposed to conscription before Vietnam, and their opposition grew considerably as a result of it. Drafted soldiers in WWII at least were patriotic and - for the most part - felt a responsibility to be there. In Vietnam, they had no interest, and actually - in the opinion of the career soldiers - were more hindrance than help.
Furthermore, the draft only became seriously unpopular as the war dragged on over years, and even then only in the left. Today it would be fiercely opposed, across the board, from the very beginning.
No government, outside of an autocracy, will reasonably try to force conscription upon an unwilling populace. It wouldn't work militarily or politically. Today, a draft would be wildly unpopular from the get go, on both sides of the aisle. The military would be opposed. And the voters would, at their first opportunity, vote out anyone who helped implement it. As such, the draft being instituted is absolutely unfathomable in today's environment.
Ignorance combined with arrogance is not a good look, sweetie. Try educating yourself, then gaining some perspective on life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cenk's answer once again demonstrated that he's never left his bedroom: "Why should they go to Egypt or Jordan? They're "Palestinians!" (paraphrasing) Oh, Cenk, there you go again. No, they are not "Palestinians", a fake name made up by the PLO terrorists in 1970s. They are Egyptians and Jordanians. Gaza was part of Egypt - Israel tried to give it back, but Egypt steadfastly refuses to take it. The "West Bank" was part of Jordan - Israel has tried to give it back, but Jordan steadfastly refuses to take it.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
And those are the facts.
1
-
@betoz4438
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is not there.
The term "Palestinian" is false, recently made up for political purposes.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
I hope you find this educational.
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
-
@jarrodgeikie870
You may not know, but I do, because I've been following politics closely for decades, and I've seen this routine before. Most folks had stopped paying attention once the two main candidates were set, and the rest quit after Trump humiliated himself in the first debate against Biden. By then, every Democrat was chomping at the bit to vote against Trump, as were most independents and some Republicans. The thought then was, "Get Trump out NOW, figure out the rest later", and no laptop would have changed a thing. The only time it would have mattered were had it come out early in the primaries, and would have meant a different nominee for the Democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gyrovids9462
Wow. Your comment brings to mind countries such as North Korea, or the Congo, dictatorships devoid of freedom which pointedly place the word "Democratic" (or some variation thereof) into their name, as if that word alone makes up for their totalitarian society. Similarly, communist movements in Western countries pretend that wealth confiscation and other state infringements upon personal liberty are an example of "democracy" and "freedom", the precise opposite of the truth.
See, in a free country, the government's job (as the Declaration emphasized) is protect the citizenry's God-given rights. An individual's rights only end when they overstep into intrusion into someone else's space.
No, forcing people to vote at gunpoint is not an exercise in freedom or liberty, but rather in tyranny. A mild interference, as these things go, but such intrusions, left unchecked, present a danger of beginning a slow descent into authrotrianism. See Australia, where voting is mandatory, and where the terrifying loss of freedom during two plus years of Covid were exposed to the world.
Anyone with a basic understanding of American values innately understands how un-American compulsary voting would be, as in fact compulsory nearly-anything is. Shall we force the public to exercise and eat vegetables as well?
"The best government is that which governs least."
- Henry David Thoreau
Our founders understood that point instinctively. Confusing an intrusive dictatorship with a traditional liberal republic is a mistake none of them would have made.
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
-
@mathusalen1
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
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
-
@charlytaylor1748
Last year I got hit with Covid, age 49, 165 lbs. Sickest I've ever been, two weeks in bed, missed three weeks of work. Anyway, the older one is, the less he needs to worry about long term effects. I will grant you, though, that should you get Covid, you are highly likely to come out of it okay. But I still think that the risk of Covid is greater than the risk of vaccination. But hey, free country. Or at least it should be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gianthills
Facts are obviously not your thing.
First of all, neither Christians nor Muslims deny that the Jews came first, then the Christians, and later the Muslims. Islam itself is only around 1400 years old. Chritianity is less than 2100 years old. Judaism predates both by millennia.
I know that Christians believe in the Torah, which they know as the "Old Testament". My understanding is that the Muslims do as well. So when God in the Torah gives Israel to the Jews, that should mean something to the other religions as well.
Then we have the artifacts. Archaeologists digging in Israel vontinue to find artifacts dating back to between 2000 and 2500 years ago, and they match that which is described in Tanakh to an absolute T.
As to this video, did you even watch it? Oren is not religious, and relied on historical evidence here, which is in abundance. Yes, Jews have been praying to return to Jerusalem since before there ever was an Islam. Yes, the Tanakh mentions Israel and Jerusalem over 600 times. How often does the Q'uran mention Jerusalem? Not once. The Q'uran, however, does mention Israel. 37 times. And all 37 it calls in the land of the Jews. Amazing how that works, right?
Just for fun, let's look at the names of the groups. Jews? From Judea. Arabs? From the Arabian Peninsula. Makes things pretty clear, doesn't it? It was only in 1964, with the creation of the PLO, that the Arabs began calling themselves "Palestinians", in order to confuse the issue. And if you want a bunch of quotes from "Palestinians" backing that up I can provide that as well.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@bigperm3853
Wow, are you serious? How ignorant can you be? I mean, for starters, did you even bother to watch the three minute video upon which you are commenting? Apparently not. Try doing so before you comment. Just in this video, it is 27 to 0.
Here in the US, the supporters of trans child abuse cite WPATH, a radical trans special interest group which has no actual facts on its side. Medical centers which performed such atrocities used WPATH as a fig leaf to cover for their atrocities, which were actually done for money-making purposes, as exposés have shown. As Crenshaw said here and the witness could not refute, every study using any serious length of time and sizeable group done by non-interested parties has shown that trans surgeries has negative results. It also has an extremely high rate of complications. And those numbers predate the current trans craze, in which nearly 100% of those identifying as trans do not actually have gender transphoria. Are you familiar with the issue of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria? Studies have shown that a minimum of 90% of those who consider going trans who then choose to wait on it eventually grow out of it, and are thankful not to have acted on it medically. Which is one reason why European countries have been rapidly moving against allowing trans surgeries and puberty blockers: the statistics show that disaster is the usual result.
Exactly what do you think happened in this video? What do you think Abigail Shrier discovered in her comprehensive research, including looking at every trans study ever done? What do you think about Dr. Miriam Grossman, who may be the world's foremost expert on such matters? Have you even bothered to spend five minutes on finding out the truth, or are you just regurgitating the mainstream media's nonsense? Are you even aware of the whistle-blower at the St. Louis trans clinic who exposed the horrific abuse going on there amid the larger issue of the child maiming that is giving trans "medical care"? Did you watch any of Megyn Kelly's shows with various experts on the topics - including Dr. Miriam Grossman, Carrie Prejean, Britt Mayer and others? Why do you think so many European countries have now banned transgender surgeries on minors after having allowed them until just a couple of years ago? It is because the studies are in, and the dangers off the charts.
Beyond all the above, I recommend reading the highly perceptive article by Christina Buttons called "What the Recovered Memory Movement Can Tell Us About The Gender Affirmation Movement". It explains well what is going on in this trans craze, a temporary situation if ever there was one, with its brief moment in the sun already being exposed and rejected rapidly.
There, I just provided plenty of information. Just by reading the books of Dr. Miriam Grossman and Abigail Shrier, or by merely watching any full length interview or speech that each has done, you will hear about the long-term studies, not a single one of which has shown that trans surgery or puberty blockers are of benefit. And if you follow up on the rest of the stuff I gave you, you'll learn even more. Do so, then get back to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TK-zj7cl
1. Unreadable
2. Same BS excuse socialists amd communists always make. "It wasn't real socialism/communism". Sure was, and it failed every time. It always starts the same, with the poor voting in the socialist leaded, thrilled that they will get the money taken by force from the succesful, wealthy businessmen. Shortly thereafter, of course, there is no more production of wealth, and everyone is starving to death. Some version of this happened in China, the USSR, Cambodia, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, numerous African countries, and many other places. Somehow, every one ended in failure. Meanwhile, free markets have worked to dramatically raise the living conditions of countries everywhere, and that is true even if the leader turns out to be a crooked, murderous dictator, such as Chile under Augusto Pinochet. Awful as Pinochet was, and he was evil, the country overall prospered nonetheless, at least those he didn't murder. Chile remained the success story of South America for years, despite Pinochet's thievery and murder, because free markets are successful. Contrast with any of the socialist examples mentioned above: They wish they had Pinochet, who "only" killed 3000 people, which is nothing compared to the millions murdered in all the above countries, and whose citizens prospered despite Pinochet's theft, as there was plenty of money to go around anyway. In Venezuela, meanwhile, they kill their pets for food.
According to the UN, by the way, one BILLION people were removed from poverty between 2000 and 2020 due to free market reforms. How's that?
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rbn.austin6051
Supply side economics absolutely works.
The reason the debt has increased is because spending increased.
For example, under Reagan, the deficit increased despite the fact that revenue to the government increased, because the spending increased at an even higher rate. Reagan attempted spending cuts, but the Democrat House blocked nearly all of it.
Trump reduced taxes and regulations, which massively spurred the economy and therefore government revenue, but Trump never even attempted to cut spending. The Congress was then run by the GOP, who made no attempt to cut government spending. The Republican base at that time was firmly behind Trump, and would have howled at any Congressperson who balked at any part of his plan.
Clinton governed from the hard left his first two years, the result of which was an avalanche in the midterms, in which the Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Clinton then famously chose "triangulation", turning very moderate in his policies, and agreeing with the GOP Congress on major spending cuts, including, most dramatically, welfare reform. As Clinton himself said in his State of the Union speech, "The Era of Big Government Is Over". If only! That one didn't last. But while it did, we actually had a balanced budget, even a slight surplus.
Milton Friedman noted back then that the secret to balanced budgets was divided government, because when one party runs all of it then they agree to spend away. Divided government means no agreement on where to overspend, giving us at least a chance at fiscal sanity.
Back to supply side economics - the idea is actually quite simple. Say you have a supermarket in which cereal is not selling at $5 a box and is now clogging up your shelves, leading the store to suffer losses. How would you make up for those losses? The equivalent of raising taxes would be to say that we are not bringing in enough revenue at $2/box profit on cereal, so let's raise the price to $6, thereby increasing the revenue to $3/box. The problem? Fewer boxes of cereal sold at the higher price, therefore no gain in revenue. Supply side would say to lower the price to $4/box, thereby decreasing the profit to a mere $1/box, which is more than made up for by the massive increase in sales.
That, in fact, is the entire idea of supply side economics, first pursued by Andrew Carnegie during the Coolidge administration. Noticing that rich folks were sheltering their money, he convinced the administration to lower taxes on the rich, which not only spurred economic growth for the entire country, it actually increased the amount of revenue raised in taxes just from the cohort upon whom tax rates were lowered.
Hope that helped.
1
-
1
-
@rbn.austin6051
I would maintain that the micro example provided holds up well. That said, there is a limited amount I can reasonably explain in a YT comment. I would hope that you would spend some time reading or watching Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, or Arthur Laffer.
No, neither extreme of 100% or 0% taxation would work; both would bring in precisely zero revenue. This is where the Laffer curve comes in, wherein the idea is to hit the sweet spot. If we removed all regulations and 99% of taxes then the economy would go great guns, but the government could never come close to paying its bills. But no one is advocating lowering taxes to near-nothing. The idea is to reduce it to the point where people will risk and innovate and create, while the government can still fulfill its basic functions.
A basic flaw in your assumptions above is that more government spending on healthcare will produce a healthier society. History has demonstrated otherwise, and Thomas Sowell (among others) has explained why it is so.
I am opposed to term limits. It puts me in the distinct minority, but in both theory and practice (in states and municipalities where it is the law) the idea serves no positive purpose, and also violates the basic notion of a democracy free to choose its own leaders. Its popularity, I assume, comes from a vague "throw the bums out" populist, vengeful notion, but I've yet to encounter a reasonable argument in its favor.
1
-
@rbn.austin6051
(Second Consecutive Comment)
I should have added slightly more specificity in my response to your points just above regarding stickiness and alternatives: The same does actually hold true when it comes to taxation. As Thomas Sowell explains in Chapter 23 ("Myths About Markets") of (arguably) his magnum opus, "Basic Economics", and as you can also read in his pamphlet-sized book titled "Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich", markets absolutely do react to incentives and disincentives of levels of taxation. As noted earlier in this thread, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (who I am now thinking that I mistakenly and weirdly labeled "Andrew Carnegie" above) correctly intuited that the wealthy were stashing away their money in shelters due to overtaxation, and that lowering the top rates would stimulate commerce to the benefit of all, government included. And so it was in the 1920s, and again every time it has been tried.
Free market capitalism is a proven winner. Government intervention beyond a certain basic point leads inexorably to inefficiencies which only get worse with ever-increasing government involvement, which will always be the chosen remedy demanded by far too many.
Fact is, government overtaxation leads to recession. Government overspending leads to inflation. Anti-poverty programs lead to more poverty, anti-homeless efforts lead to more homelessness. The more government gets involved in healthcare, the worse healthcare gets. And so it is across the board, as history has shown.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, read and/or watch Milton Friedman and/or Thomas Sowell, who demonstrate these points so clearly and beautifully, and in a way I never could, especially when limited to a YT comment box.
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
-
@benisrood
Actually, the anti-Semite wrote a blatantly false comment. The notion that there is a Jewish groupthink which overwhelmingly covers members of that religion by grouping them on the left is blatantly false. In fact, religious people tend to be conservatives, and irreligious people leftists. Jews are defined by matrilineal descent; as such, someone whose mother is Jewish but who him-or-herself is a wholly irreligious atheist would still be called Jewish, yet their lives have precisely nothing to do with religion. This differs entirely from other religions wherein, for example, someone born to a Christian family who becomes an atheist is not considered Christian anymore.
Fact is, religious Jews are, statistically speaking, conservatives. Irreligous people are, statistically speaking, far left. It is only because of the anomaly I just explained that the statistics are skewed when it comes to those who are identified as Jews.
That's a big point here, but not the only relevant one. There are other groups which skew left far more spectacularly - AAs, for example, although they are beginning to move noticeably in the right direction, at least the males, anyway. At the same time, acting as if AAs - even female AAs, who really are around 95% on the left - are a group, instead of individuals, is simply wrong. That sort of approach of treating individuals as subservient to the group instead of each one as his/her own individual self is precisely what the left does, and is totally unacceptable for anyone who considers himself a conservative, patriotic American. And certainly Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson (neither one American, but that matters little in this context) would agree with every word I just wrote.
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
-
@Victorblud
Since you are too lazy and/or stupid to look up the 25th Amendment, I am reproducing Section 4 of the 25th Amendment right here for you. And if you still don't understand it, then hire a tutor. Note: I charge $100/hr.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his 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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yayahassan7161
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
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
-
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
-
@jasonq7504
Legal journals have written as follows:
"Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip."
The fact is that Jews have lived continuously in Israel for well over 3000 years. The claim that the Jews usurped Arab land is simply without basis. Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917 recognized that both Jews and Arabs had been living in the area in recent years, which led to several attempts to divvy up the land. Every version was accepted by the Jews, every one rejected by the Arabs. And then the Arab states got together to "push Israel into the sea" as they put it, in 1948 and 1967 and 1973, and failed each time. Then Egypt agreed to a peace treaty with Israel in the late 1970s, a major step forward, and other states eventually followed. Not all, of course - the Muslim Brotherhood (Iran, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc.) still swears that their goal - essentially their only goal - is the elimination of Israel, the elimination of all Jews, and eventually taking over the planet for Islam and installing universal Sharia Law.
One of the sources of confusion is the term "Palestinian", and references to "Palestine". What is now called Israel was called Palestine 100 years ago, but it was called Israel thousands of years ago. When the PLO terrorist group wanted to push the false narrative in the 1960s that the Jews had removed the Arabs from their land, they renamed some Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, and Jordanians as "Palestinians", as if they had been in "Palestine" before the Jews pushed them out. It was a claim made up out of whole cloth.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
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
-
@LilyAmongThorns
A. The note was obviously not written by Patsy. Anyone with any questions left on this point should read Judge Julie Carnes's opinion in Wolf v. Ramsey, in which the court utterly shredded the credibility of those who tried to claim that Patsy wrote it, most obviously the risible Cina Wong.
B. Burke was the first cleared. The list of evidence clearing him is nearly endless.
1. The police at the Ramsey house did not realize that JonBenét had been struck on the head. Neither did the coroner's office, nor the coroner himself - until Dr. John Meyer ultimately peeled back her scalp. So how is it that Patsy thought JonBenét was dead? Shouldn't she have called an ambulance?
2. The assistant DA at the time, Bill Wise, was quoted as saying that the force used was sufficient to “bring down a 350 lb. Green Packers [sic] lineman”. How could a 60 lb. boy possibly have done such damage? (Remember that the slanderous CBS show used a boy far larger, yet required numerous takes to crack a fake skull in just the right way.)
3. Despite the massive damage to her skull (8.5" crack, a piece of her skull completely broken off) there was no blood anywhere. The top scientists concluded that she must have been strangled first. If so, how does the Burke theory work?
4. The top scientists also noted the various injuries to JonBenét's neck, which proved that she was a)alive when she was strangled, and b)consciously fought to remove the rope from her neck. How would that be explained?
5. The University of Boulder lab concluded that JonBenét had eaten a fruit salad - not plain pineapple. How does that fit into the Burke theory?
6. Believing Burke did it means that the following got it wrong:
*The FBI
*Every member of the Boulder Police Department
*Two Boulder DAs
*The top homicide detective on the case
*The top FBI profiler
*The Special Prosecutor
*The psychologist who interviewed Burke
* The top legal correspondents at three different networks
...and numerous others.
Why would anyone think that they picked up on something that everyone else explicitly ruled out?
7. CODIS only accepts high-level, identifiable DNA into its database. It accepted the DNA found in several spots on different surfaces of different clothing as belonging to a mix of two people: JonBenét plus one intruder. All Ramseys were ruled out as being a contributor to the mix. How can that be explained?
8. The same DNA was used to positively exclude numerous suspects, such as Michael Helgoth, Chris Wolf, Randy Simons, Glenn Meyer, John Mark Karr, Santa Bill McReynolds, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, Mervyn Pugh, and numerous others. If one believes that the DNA doesn't count, how could it have been used to clear anyone?
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden's dementia makes everyone forget about his own threat to democracy. His administration continues to use lawfare against his opponent in NY, DC, GA,and FL. He repeatedly violates the Constitution by having hard working taxpayers foot the bill for obnoxious, pro-Ham ss kids taking gender study classes in college. He unconstitutionally tried to force 80m Americans to take a shot, now shown to unalive otherwise healthy people, teens especially. He dishonorably discharged military members who refused to take that dangerous shot, hurting both those them and the military as a whole. He turned the military into a woke garbage center, badly hurting US preparation for war. Biden backs terror groups in the Middle East, funding billions of dollars to Iran and Russia, and supporting Ham ss, costing lives of countless people in the process, Americans included. He took Afghanistan, which was peacefully run by our allies without a single American life being at risk, and handed it over to the Taliban, killing many innocents in the process, including 13 Americans, as well as handing over billions of dollars of the most advanced American equipment to the Taliban. And by doing so showed monumental weakness to our enemies throughout the world, leading directly to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Iran's (through Ham ss) of 🇮🇱, while also encouraging the Houthis, Hezbollah and other terror groups' attacks, by showing total fecklessness. Biden has opened our border wide, allowing in millions of ill gal immigrants, leading to the ra *pe and mu *rder of Americans. He has also shredded our economy with inflation not seen in two generations. He has been unbelievably divisive, giving incredibly nasty speeches attacking the character of half the country, spreading terrible slander about both them and their preferred candidate (such as with the "good people on both sides" lie), unforgivable for someone who claims to be a unifying figure as president of the whole country, not half of it.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@SombraCheeks
I don't know why you get off on falsely accusing innocent victims, but that officially makes you a really bad person. Shame on you.
No, the Ramseys didn't lie about anything. No, the note is not in Patsy's handwriting. No, the last thing in JonBenét's stomach was not pineapple. No, Burke absolutely did not hit her with the flashlight, an absolutely absurd claim.
Just to get this straight:
1. The police at the Ramsey house did not realize that JonBenét had been struck on the head. Neither did the coroner's office, nor the coroner himself - until Dr. John Meyer ultimately peeled back her scalp. So how is it that Patsy thought JonBenét was dead? Shouldn't she have called an ambulance?
2. The assistant DA at the time, Bill Wise, was quoted as saying that the force used was sufficient to “bring down a 350 lb. Green Packers [sic] lineman”. How could a 60 lb. boy possibly have done such damage?
3. Despite the massive damage to her skull (8.5" crack, a piece of her skull completely broken off) there was no blood anywhere. The top scientists concluded that she must have been strangled first. If so, how does the Burke theory work?
4. The top scientists also noted the various injuries to JonBenét's neck, which proved that she was a)alive when she was strangled, and b)consciously fought to remove the rope from her neck. How would you explain that?
5. The University of Boulder lab concluded that JonBenét had eaten a fruit salad - not plain pineapple. How does that fit into your theory?
6. Believing Burke did it means that the following got it wrong:
* The Federal Court
* The FBI
* Every member of the Boulder Police Department
* Two Boulder DAs
* The top homicide detective on the case
* The top FBI profiler
* The Special Prosecutor
* The psychopathy expert who worked the case
* The top DNA experts in the world
* The top experts in other related sciences
* The psychologists who interviewed Burke
...and numerous others.
Why would you think you picked up on something that everyone else explicitly ruled out?
7. CODIS only accepts high-level, identifiable DNA into its database. It accepted the DNA found in several spots on different surfaces of different clothing as belonging to a mix of two people: JonBenét plus one intruder. All Ramseys were ruled out as being a contributor to the mix. How do you explain that?
8. The same DNA was used to positively exclude numerous suspects, such as Michael Helgoth, Chris Wolf, Randy Simons, Glenn Meyer, Gary Oliva, John Mark Karr, Santa Bill McReynolds, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, Mervyn Pugh, and numerous others. If you believe that the DNA doesn't count, how could it have been used to clear anyone?
Please get back to me when you can explain all that.
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
-
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
-
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
-
Jericka Duncan is not a reporter, she is a hack and propagandist. She never, ever reports a story - she always turns it into a propaganda piece, usually about race, occasionally about gender. Here she did both.
No, the Moab PD did nothing wrong, and neither did social media by focusing on the case. The word "news" is plural of the word "new".
For better or worse, inner city and reservation girls disappear all the time. If the cameras showed up whenever that happened, that's all they would report on, and their ratings would go in the tank.
No, the police did nothing wrong by letting those two go. Easy for psychologists, knowing what came next, to second-guess everyone on that scene. But nothing the Police did would have made a difference. They handled a sensitive situation with sensitivity, which was the right thing to do. And if the hadn't, and had locked everyone up for a day or two? It would have ultimately made no difference.
Beautiful 22 year old girls on social media do not suddenly disappear, making that story "new", and therefore news. I am so very tired of the media putting their stupid leftist slant on everything. And Jericka Duncan may be the worst out of all the mainstream news reporters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@natural9242
Every single word Finkelstein said was a lie.. How about the opening statement, when he claimed that no one knew about the carnage for four days? How about his bullschitt explanation about why he kept up his article despite it being based upon a lie? Piers didn't ask why Finkelstein didn't amend it with a note afterward explaining his supposed shift in thinking.
Piers left a lot of questions out, actually, such as:
* If Israel wanted control of Gaza, why did they hand it over fully in 2005?
* If Hamas terrorism is a response to Israeli aggression the last 17 years, then why did Hamas establish itself, and dedicate itself to extermination of all Jews, in 1988?
* If Hamas cares about their own lives, why does their founding document promise to exterminate Jews?
* If Hamas cares about their civilians, why do they hide behind them?
* If Hamas cares about their civilians, why did they stop civilians from moving south by shooting at those civilians?
* If Gaza is a concentration camp, why do they measure their lives in decades, not days or hours such as in 1940s Germany?
* If Gaza is a concentration camp, then why do you see Mercedes Benzes on the street? Why do they receive billions in aid packages? How do they build hundreds of miles of tunnels?
* If Hamas had attacked Egypt instead of Israel, would the notorious anti-Semite Finkelstein have similarly celebrated? Egypt has a border with Gaza, with a stronger separation than Israel does. Why does the anti-Semitic Feinkelstein focus on Israel instead of Egypt?
* Israel gave over Gaza in 2005, but only erected the fence in 2007, after Hamas won power and began attacking Israel. If Israel was out to get the Gazans, why did they wait a couple of years to erect a fence?
There's a start for you, based off what I remember of Finkelstein's lies. If Piers doesn't know enough to counter Finkelstein's lies, he shouldn't have him on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anouarkrassimovich7481
I'm not. He is a deeply sick man, a Holocaust denier, and a liar who is no longer welcome among polite society due to his Holocaust denial and support of terrorism, along with the likes of David Irving, another Holocaust denier.
Those who are interested in the truth can see the reams of evidence put up for all the world to see by the likes of Megyn Kelly, Douglas Murray, Ben Shapiro and many others. Finkelstein lied from the word go here, as anyone can easily find out. It took "four days" to know that over a thousand were killed? The worldwide news reports had the number at over 1,000 in under 48 hours. That is long before we get to all of Finkelstein's other absurd lies, such as calling Gaza an Israeli-administered concentration camp. Why don't "Palestinians" go out the border they share with Egypt? Oh, right, because Egypt doesn't want them either. Neither does Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, or any other country which has expelled them over the years, nor any of the other 50+ Muslim countries which refuses them entry. Ever wonder why that is? Ever wonder why 1.8m Muslim Arabs live comfortably as Israeli citizens while serving in the IDF, on the Israeli Supreme Court, in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), as doctors, lawyers, businessmen and police officers?
The conditions in Gaza are 100% the fault of Hamas. If the Gazans wanted peace instead of genocide of Jews, they would have been living comfortable lives for many years already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobjary9382
Why would we support terrorism? Should we give money to ISIS as well? Hamas leadees use the money mostly for terrorism, and the rest to line their own pockets.
The Abraham Accords were a stunning success. Israel and the Arab countries were coming together, while the world's biggesr supporter of terrorism, Iran, was being sidelined, along with Iran's puppets in the region, such as Hamas. Along came Biden and bungled everything - not just in Israel, but also Afghanistan, the border, the economy, and everything else you can name. The man is stunningly incomepetent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gf431
Sorry for the delay in my response. I am just now catching up in reading comments from the last month.
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
The only apartheid is in Muslim lands. How many Jews live in Muslim countries? Most of them have killed or expelled all their Jews, while some - such as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia - do not allow Israelis on their soil, even as visitors, to this very day.
1.8 million Arabs live in Israel as full Israeli citizens, where they serve in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), on the Israeli Supreme Court, in the Israeli Defense Forces, as EMTs, doctors, lawyers, police officers, judges, businessmen, CEOs, and everything else, working side-by-side with Israeli Jews. There are more Arab than Jewish doctors per capita in Israel. The biggest bank in Israel has an Arab as its CEO. An Arab judge put a former Israeli president into prison after convicting him of a crime.
I truly hope you found this useful.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vernonfrance2974
Linda Hoffman Pugh was not involved. In any complicated case, there will be evidence pointing in many different directions, but most of those are false leads. For example, if a couple is going through a horrendous divorce, and the husband gets run over by a truck, who do think gets suspected by police? Then her hairdresser tells the cops that the wife had hoped that he would keel over and die already. Easy enough, right? Except the guy was rubbed out by his business partner. These things are not always as simple as they seem.
LPH was looked at quite seriously as a suspect, and subsequently cleared. She was not involved, and neither were any of the Ramseys.
And whatever you do, please never quote Mark Beckner, who may be the most unintelligent, ignorant and foolish police chief anywhere in tbe US during the last quarter century.
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
-
@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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sheilamacdougal4874
I love how you continue to change your argument, yet demand an apology simultaneously. You copy-pasted your comment onto dozens of threads in which the OP said something - anything - positive about Kim Iversen, and insisted that she didn't know what she was talking about...then went on to make a strawman argument instead of addressing what she actually said. Iversen's argument against a vaccine mandate at this point is totally correct, so instead you act as if she has denied the seriousness of Covid overall.
Speaking of apologies, when I called you out for utterly inventing a preposterous "statistic" (10m dead), you attacked me yet again, instead of apologizing. Yet you seek apology from others? Fraud.
Let's continue.
"There are documented cases of single passengers infecting many on on a flight." Uh huh. Where would those documents be? Because the actual data shows that, perhaps due to hepa filters on airplanes, Covid does not spread more on a plane than in other enclosed areas, but likely spreads less.
Next: Omicron is extremely contageous. Being vaccinated will not ultimately stop the spread. What being vaccinated will do is limit the damage - at least to those who have not had a serious prior case - to those who contracted the Omicron variant themselves. In short, the mandate helps save people from themselves, which is not the government's job.
It is true that as government overreach has reached preposterous levels, the government feels compelled to protect the citizenry from themselves in ways that should not be necessary, and were not necessary when individual responsibility was more of a thing. Doesn't make it correct though.
On to shortages: Hospitals that have a shortage of available beds are in that position because the number of beds has been artificially reduced by vaccine mandates. The same people lauded as heroes, the front-line workers who risked their lives to save everyone in the first few months of the pandemic, are now being fired despite nearly all of them having acquired natural immunity. The government has now reached the farcical point of allowing Covid-positive staff to stay on the job at medical facilities provided they are vaccinated, just so they can continue the ban on the Covid-free unvaccinated. If that doesn't demonstrate the idiocy of overarching central control and the refusal of the bureaucrats to admit wrongdoing, then what does? Go ahead, try to defend that absurdity.
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
-
@M1sterE321
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hvirus1
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrHalified
I don't take Jimmy Dore seriously.
YT seems to go heavy on censorship in waves. I've had times when it seems half my comments get automatically deleted, and others when nearly everything sails through. In a previous lifetime, they deleted an earlier channel of mine, along with thousands of my comments, all in one shot, thus violating their own rules, as they provided no warning.
I've no doubt that the official Covid numbers are wildly inflated. Rochelle Walensky just admitted on Fox News Sunday that she couldn't say how many of the 850,000 US Covid deaths were due to Covid versus with Covid. And NYS Governor Kathy Hochul said that around half the hospitalized children with Covid in the state were diagnosed after being admitted for unrelated reasons, such as broken bones.
An emergency responder I know is adamant that Covid is just another flu, and that most deaths blamed on Covid were actually caused by hospitalization. That sounds wildly exaggerated to me, but I believe that it contains more than a kernel of truth.
Beware anecdotal evidence, but when my own parents got hit with very serious Covid cases early on, my siblings made the decision to keep them out of the hospital at all costs. Their doctor prescribed the HCQ cocktail, and my parents made it through, my mother just barely.
On the flip side...there are undoubtedly countries which underreport.
I do believe that the emergency is now over in the US, with most people likely having had Covid, with vaccines widely available, and with a dominant strain which is relatively mild in nature.
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jillsouthers5916
So why are you blaming Israel, besides for your anti-Semitism? Why not blame Egypt? Or Kuwait, which expelled 400,000 (!) Palestinians. Or Syria, which threw them all out. Or Jordan, which killed 3,000 and expelled another 20,000. Or Qatar, an ally of Iran with massive room for millions in their country. The list goes on...see, no one wants terrorists living in their country, but some people only want to blame Israel. Wonder why? Oh, right. Because they're vicious anti-Semites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@melzerzvlogz6027
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
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
-
@afry6400
Six months of daily riots "mostly peaceful protests", egged on by Democrats and the mainstream media. The most costly riots in American history. And Democrat politicians, Kamala Harris among them, promoted a fund which bailed rioters out of prison.
One member of Congress advocated getting in the face of political adversaries. That was a Democrat - Maxine Waters.
Someone tried to murder numerous Congressmen, and nearly killed Steve Scalise. He was inspired to do so by Bernie Sanders's rhetoric.
A member of the Supreme Court was targeted for assassination. Bret Kavanaugh was marked by a member of the left. This came after Kavanaugh was publicly threatened by Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Five police officers were assassinated by a BLM supporter angry about police killings of black men, an issue reported on endlessly by the mainstream media. Statistics clearly show that whites are disproportionately killed by police. The leftist narrative is a lie, but the five Dallas officers are dead nonetheless.
Respected, Nevada-based long-time journalist Jeff German, age 69, was stabbed to death, allegedly by a politician he was covering, 45 year old Rob Telles, who faces the death penalty.
Shall I continue?
Meanwhile, the following is a list of elected Republicans who supported the invasion of the Capitol, a terrible incident which lasted three hours total:
(crickets)
And those are the facts.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@HarleyLesley0208
He's ignorant about a lot of things. Willfully ignorant, I suppose. His cherry-picked version of history and WWIII fear-mongering is political propaganda, and not based upon the facts. Somehow members of the so-called Right these days talk precisely how Bernie Sanders used to back in the 1980s, yet expect to be taken seriously. Megyn, do better.
Fact is, in the early 1990s, with Yeltsin in charge in Russia, it was widely thought that the Cold War and its vestiges had been permanently erased. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" perfectly captured the moment. The US asked Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons, which they only did in exchange for a US guarantee of protection. We then sold them down the river, like we have all too often with the Kurds. I wish we were more honorable in our relations with other countries.
Fact is, if Trump were in office, the Ukraine invasion would have never happened. It was Biden's ineptitude which gave Putin the green light to do as he pleased. That started with the Afghan disaster, of course, but then continued with Biden's pulling the choke chain on the Ukrainians, again showing weakness and fear to the Russians.
Which is precisely what Jeffrey Sachs favors. Biden should have let Ukraine be aggressive against Russia on Day One, and perhaps this war could have ended much earlier. Instead this administration did everything to ensure a long-term quagmire, giving Ukraine just enough to prolong a war and drag out endless slaughter. This belated move by Biden is a small step in the right direction of placing Ukraine in a better negotiating position once Trump enters office.
1
-
@JoE_Songs
Sachs is REALLY hard to take. His cherry-picked version of history and WWIII fear-mongering is political propaganda, and not based upon the facts. Somehow members of the so-called Right these days talk precisely how Bernie Sanders used to talk back in the 1980s, yet expect to be taken seriously.
Fact is, in the early 1990s, with Yeltsin in charge in Russia, it was widely thought that the Cold War and its vestiges had become part of a world which had suddenly yet permanently ceased to exist. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" perfectly captured the moment. The US asked Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons, which they only did in exchange for a US guarantee of protection. We then sold them down the river, like we have all too often with the Kurds. I wish we were more honorable in our relations with other countries.
We all know that if Trump had been in office, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine would not have happened. It was Biden's ineptitude which gave Putin the green light to do as he pleased. That started with the Afghan disaster, of course, but then continued with Biden's pulling the choke chain on the Ukrainians, again showing weakness and fear to the Russians.
Which is precisely what Jeffrey Sachs favors. In fact, what Biden should have done is let Ukraine be aggressive against Russia on Day One, whereupon this war could have ended much earlier. Instead this administration did everything to ensure a long-term quagmire, giving Ukraine just enough assistance to prolong a war and drag out endless slaughter. This belated move by Biden is a small step in the right direction of placing Ukraine in a better negotiating position once Trump enters office. Biden should have sent F-16s at the start as well, but openly admitted to being scared off by Putin's saber-rattling. Of course Putin will threaten WWIII any time he thinks he can convince the US to back off. What else does he have in his pocket? That sort of thing works on the Jimmy Carters, Joe Bidens, and Bernie Sanderses of the world. It is not supposed to work on Republicans. It sure didn't work on Reagan. And it would absolutely not work on Trump. Remember Trump telling Kim Jong-Un that the US nuclear button is a lot bigger than North Korea's?
No, there is no serious possibility that Putin is going to go nuclear. Russia is a backwater mess of a disaster of a country. Do their nukes even work? Putin has no interest in finding out, because there is a good chance that they don't. But ours do, and Putin would not only be dead in five minutes, his entire country would be in ruins. Remember what drives Putin more than anything else: A need to be seen by history as a Russian strongman who returned his country to its glory days of yore. Leaving it non-existent? He is not interested, really.
Despite some self-proclaimed Maga types pushing US isolationism as part of a larger picture of US fear and cowardice in front of weak pretenders like Putin and Russia, their platform of Democrat weakness is not only not Reagan-esque, it isn't Trump-esque either. They speak for themselves, and not for Donald Trump. Even JD Vance isn't opposed to the West helping Ukraine ward off Russian aggression, but only asks that the funding come from Europe.
As it happens, Ben Shapiro also covered this topic of Biden's latest move, followed by Putin's latest threat, on his show this week, either on Tuesday or Wednesday (I forget). Ben assured that the absolutely last thing Russia would do is pick a fight with the US, and certainly not a nuclear war. Ben is correct. The only serious concern we should have is the possibility of showing weakness to Putin and other nefarious actors on the world scene. Nothing encourages the bad guys more. The only reliable way to preserve peace is to exude fearless strength. After all, whenever US power is on display, our enemies tremble in fear. Which is how it should be.
1
-
@JoE_Songs
I find Sachs REALLY hard to take. His cherry-picked version of history and WWIII fear-mongering is political propaganda, and not based upon the facts. Somehow members of the so-called Right these days talk precisely how Bernie Sanders used to talk back in the 1980s, yet expect to be taken seriously.
Fact is, in the early 1990s, with Yeltsin in charge in Russia, it was widely thought that the Cold War and its vestiges had become part of a world which had suddenly yet permanently ceased to exist. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" perfectly captured the moment. The US asked Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons, which they only did in exchange for a US guarantee of protection. We then sold them down the river, like we have all too often with the Kurds. I wish we were more honorable in our relations with other countries.
We all know that if Trump had been in office, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine would not have happened. It was Biden's ineptitude which gave Putin the green light to do as he pleased. That started with the Afghan disaster, of course, but then continued with Biden's pulling the choke chain on the Ukrainians, again showing weakness and fear to the Russians.
Which is precisely what Jeffrey Sachs favors. In fact, what Biden should have done is let Ukraine be aggressive against Russia on Day One, whereupon this war could have ended much earlier. Instead this administration did everything to ensure a long-term quagmire, giving Ukraine just enough assistance to prolong a war and drag out endless slaughter. This belated move by Biden is a small step in the right direction of placing Ukraine in a better negotiating position once Trump enters office. Biden should have sent F-16s at the start as well, but openly admitted to being scared off by Putin's saber-rattling. Of course Putin will threaten WWIII any time he thinks he can convince the US to back off. What else does he have in his pocket? That sort of thing works on the Jimmy Carters, Joe Bidens, and Bernie Sanderses of the world. It is not supposed to work on Republicans. It sure didn't work on Reagan. And it would absolutely not work on Trump. Remember Trump telling Kim Jong-Un that the US nuclear button is a lot bigger than North Korea's?
No, there is no serious possibility that Putin is going to go nuclear. Russia is a backwater mess of a disaster of a country. Do their nukes even work? Putin has no interest in finding out, because there is a good chance that they don't. But ours do, and Putin would not only be finished in five minutes, his entire country would be in ruins. Remember what drives Putin more than anything else: A need to be seen by history as a Russian strongman who returned his country to its glory days of yore. Leaving it non-existent? He is not interested, really.
Despite some self-proclaimed Maga types pushing US isolationism as part of a larger picture of US fear and cowardice in front of weak pretenders like Putin and Russia, their platform of Democrat weakness is not only not Reagan-esque, it isn't Trump-esque either. They speak for themselves, and not for Donald Trump. Even JD Vance isn't opposed to the West helping Ukraine ward off Russian aggression, but only asks that the funding come from Europe.
As it happens, Ben Shapiro also covered this topic of Biden's latest move, followed by Putin's latest threat, on his show this week, either on Tuesday or Wednesday (I forget). Ben assured that the absolutely last thing Russia would do is pick a fight with the US, and certainly not a nuclear war. Ben is correct. The only serious concern we should have is the possibility of showing weakness to Putin and other nefarious actors on the world scene. Nothing encourages the bad guys more. The only reliable way to preserve peace is to exude fearless strength. After all, whenever US power is on display, our enemies tremble in fear. Isn't that the best scenario?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CNN didn't explain, so I will:
Currently, the Israeli Supreme Court is the most powerful of the three branches of government, as opposed to how it works in other democracies. Israeli Supreme Court members appoint their own replacements, who keep their jobs for as long as they want. The Supreme Court can strike down any law they don't personally approve of, for any reason: Israel doesn't have a Constitution, so there is no chance of violating it. As such, the Supreme Court has turned into a monster. Something needs to change. I am not familiar enough with Netanyahu's plan to say what's good or bad about it, but the status quo is not working, that's for sure. And it seems highly unlikely that Netanyahu's own case would be affected, as that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know what's misleading? This show. The whole basis of this program is that people are too stupid to know how to use a credit card, thus requiring government oversight. As evidence, they present us with a panel of four people who willfully pay 20% interest so they can maintain a savings account, a level of financial illiteracy and stupidity nearly impossible to comprehend. And what if they can't figure out how to use a credit card? How about not buying the latest flat screen TV or video game? Furthermore, some specifics were particularly deceptive. For example, when the credit card company hikes your interest rate, you are given the chance to - normally within at least 60 days - decline the raised rate by shutting down the card permanently. (You continue to pay down the existing balance at the old rate, but can't make new purchases.) This entire program was full of this nonsense - everyone is stupid, the corporations are evil, and government is your best friend. Enough people continue to buy into this narrative, helping lead us into our slow slide into high inflation and towards socialism, as this formerly great country metamorphoses from the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of the pathetic and the home of the perpetual victim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mackcummy4976
Mar 5, 2019
What Socialized Medicine Looks Like
John C. Goodman
Left-wing Democrats in Congress have decided on a new version of “Medicare for All.” Turns out its going to be nothing like the Medicare program seniors are used to. What they have in mind is what we see in Canada.
Everyone (except American Indians and veterans) will be in the same system. Health care will be nominally free. Access to it will be determined by bureaucratic decision making.
Here’s what to expect.
Overproviding to the Healthy, Underproviding to the Sick.
The first thing politicians learn about health care is this: most people are healthy. In fact, they are very heathy – spending only a few dollars on medical care in any given year. By contrast, 50% of the health care dollars will be spent on only 5% of the population in a typical year.
Politicians in charge of health care, however, can’t afford to spend half their budget on only 5% of the voters, including those who may be too sick to vote at all. So, there is ever-present pressure to divert spending away from the sick toward the healthy.
In Canada and in Britain, patients see primary care physicians more often than Americans do. In fact, the ease with which relatively healthy people can see doctors is probably what accounts for the popularity of these system in both countries.
But once they get to the doctor’s office British and Canadians patients receive fewer services. For real medical problems, Canadians often go to hospital emergency rooms – where the average wait in Canada is four hours. In Britain, one of every ten emergency room patients leave without ever seeing a doctor.
A study by former Congressional Budget Office director June O’Neill and her husband Dave O’Neill found that:
* The proportion of middle-aged Canadian women who have never had a mammogram is twice the U.S. rate.
* Three times as many Canadian women have never had a pap smear.
* Fewer than 20% of Canadian men have ever been tested for prostate cancer, compared with about 50% of U.S. men.
* Only 10% of adult Canadians have ever had a colonoscopy, compared with 30% of US adults.
* These differences in screening may partly explain why the mortality rate in Canada is 25% higher for breast cancer, 18% higher for prostate cancer, and 13% higher for colorectal cancer.
A study by Brookings Institution scholar Henry Aaron and his colleagues found that:
* Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners as the U.S. and one-third as many MRI scanners.
* The rate at which the British provide coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth of the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds of the U.S. rate.
* The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients age 45 to 84 and nine times higher for patients 85 years of age or older.
We can see the political pressure to provide services to the healthy at the expense of the sick in our own country’s Medicare program. Courtesy of Obamacare, every senior is entitled to a free wellness exam, which most doctors regard as virtually worthless. Yet if elderly patients endure an extended hospital stay, they can face unlimited out-of-pocket costs.
Rationing by Waiting.
Although Canada has no limits on how frequently a relatively healthy patient may see a doctor, it imposes strict limits on the purchase of medical technology and on the availability of specialists. Hospitals are subject to global budgets – which limit their spending, regardless of actual health needs.
In addition to having to wait many hours in emergency rooms, Canadians have some of the longest waits in the developed world for care that could cure diseases and save lives. The most recent study by the Fraser Institute finds that:
* In 2016, Canadians waited an average of 21.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner to receipt of treatment by a specialist – the longest wait time in over a quarter of a century of such measurements.
* Patients waited 4.1 weeks for a CT scan, 10.8 weeks for an MRI scan, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.
Similarly, a survey of hospital administrators in 2003 found that:
* 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman.
* 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.
Jumping the Queue.
Aneurin Bevan, father of the British National Health Service, declared, “the essence of a satisfactory health service is that rich and poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and wealth is not advantaged.” Yet, more than thirty years after the NHS was founded an official task force (The Black Report) found little evidence that the creation of the NHS had equalized health care access. Another study (The Acheson Report), fifty years after the NHS founding, concluded that access had become more unequal in the years between the two studies.
In Canada, studies find that the wealthy and powerful have significantly greater access to medical specialists than less-well-connected poor. High-profile patients enjoy more frequent services, shorter waiting times and greater choice of specialists. Moreover, among the nonelderly white population, low-income Canadians are 22% more likely to be in poor health than their U.S. counterparts.
These results should not be surprising. Rationing by waiting is as much an obstacle to care as rationing by price. It seems that the talents and skills that allow people to earn high incomes are similar to the talents and skills that are useful in successfully circumventing bureaucratic waiting lines.
No Exit.
The worst features of the U.S. health care system are the way in which impersonal bureaucracies interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Those are also the worst features of Canadian medical care. In Canada, when patients see a doctor the visit is free. In the U.S., the visit is almost free – with patients paying only 10 cents out of pocket for every dollar they spend, on average. In both countries, people primarily pay for care with time, not with money. The two systems are far more similar than they are different.
In Britain, private sector medicine allows patients to obtain care they are supposed to get for free from government. Middle and upper-middle income employees frequently have private health insurance, obtained through an employer. A much larger number of Britons use private doctors from time to time. The rule seems to be, “If your condition is serious, go private.”
Canada, by contrast, has basically outlawed private sector medical services that are theoretically provided by the government. If doctors, patients and entrepreneurs think of better ways of meeting patient needs they have no way of acting on those thoughts.
This is where the U.S. system is so much better—even though, as in the Canadian system, U.S. Medicare pays doctors the same way it did in the last century, before there were iPhones and email messages. Many U.S. employer plans are just as bad.
But because U.S. employers are free to meet the needs of their employees rather than live under the dictates of a politically pressured bureaucracy, one of the fastest growing employee benefits is concierge care. For as little as $50 a month for a young adult, patients can have 24/7 access to a doctor by phone and email and all the normal services that primary care physicians provide.
Uber-type house calls, consultations by phone, email and Skype, cellphone apps that allow people to manage their own care and other innovations in telemedicine are taking some parts of the private sector by storm.
These are the kinds of innovations that would be outlawed if the congressional Democrats have their way.
For more on these and other issues, interested readers may want to consult my congressional testimony, delivered with Linda Gorman, Devon Herrick and Robert Sade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Victorblud
Anyone who refers to antifa, which is flat-out a terrorist group, as an "antifascist" group, has lost touch with reality.
Anyone who supports the murder of a dozen innocent people, the ruination of the livelihoods of thousands, and the destruction of north of $2 billion of property, by murderers, looters, arsonists, rioters, and anarchists? There is something very wrong with you.
As to your claim of "racial justice", the Republicans have stood for that since its founding. The Democrats have sought to tear apart this country on racial boundaries for its entire existence. It was true during the Civil War, it was true when they supported Jim Crow, it was true when they tried to block the Republicans from passing civil rights laws, and it is true with their open racism of today.
https://youtu.be/SYfYvGRlE44
If you care about facts, you can read my comments above, as well as this one, and check out the links I provided.
If you care about the truth, you will admit that bring black in this country today is, statistically speaking, an advantage when dealing with colleges, cops, amd corporations, and pretty much everything else as well.
“Not sure what to think about the Black Lives Matter protests?” by The Free Speecher https://link.medium.com/wVVG12OGj9
https://www.city-journal.org/html/are-we-all-unconscious-racists-15487.html
https://youtu.be/piwaBO6U43U
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
https://www.city-journal.org/html/racial-profiling-myth-debunked-12244.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force
https://medium.com/electric-thoughts/america-is-not-racist-and-neither-are-the-cops-2e77992e75da
1
-
@Victorblud
I have repeatedly debunked your misinformation about the "Southern Strategy".
I explained that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Republican legislation, filibustered by Democrats, and signed by LBJ - himself an old racist who routinely used the "n" word - for the most cynical of reasons:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."
- LBJ, talking to Democrat Senator Richard Russell
The 1987 Act had bipartisan support. The only ones who opposed it did so because they wanted religious liberty protected, and wanted that clearly written into the bill.
(Nice to see that you speak approvingly of someone who killed an innocent woman. Ever heard of Mary Jo Kopechne? Using your logic, you must believe that men should be allowed to drown women as they please.)
How many times do I need to prove you wrong?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Victorblud
Antifa openly admits to using violence against peaceful citizens with whom they disagree. And videos of antifa members violently assaulting civilians are all over the internet.
Patrick Kennedy is a lifelong Democrat, as was Ted Kennedy.
I brought links from sources right, center, and left. I make no apology for using Carol Swain, a highly educated black woman who grew up in the Jim Crow south, as a source.
Your sources, however, are exclusively far left. They twist quotes, misuse statistics, and sometimes plainly falsify. The link you brought above entirely misstates both the content and the intent of the Prager video it references, all of which has absolutely nothing to do with Carol Swain.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans. Check the Congressional Record.
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
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pippin3168
How awful. Awful, awful, awful. Hard to fathom.
I forget that I'm older than the average person these days. (I'm old!) Yates probably happened 20 years ago, maybe more. IIRC, he was a very religious guy, and very quiet and reserved as well, and they lived in a converted yellow schoolbus or something. They blamed him for not being more proactive, knowing that his wife suffered from major postpartum depression, as well as for living in cramped quarters under those circumstances. As I recall, doctors instructed that Andrea Yates not be left alone with the kids, so she had her mother or mother-in-law (I forget which) with her at all times. I believe she sent away that shadow intentionally on some errand for just long enough so she would have the opportunity to drown all five kids in the bathtub. Starting frrom the youngest, the older ones knew what was coming, and were crying hysterically, begging her not to kill them. Of course my memory could be off, so I would have to check it up online. But it was a horrendous case, and received a massive amount of attention at the time.
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
-
@ChaoticGoodPeasant23
Hamas is beyond evil, literally worse than 1939 Germany. The same leftist lunatics who supported six months of BLM rioting in the streets as a "racial reckoning", and who support mutilating children as supposed "gender confirmation", they also support the Jew hating, murderous Arab terror groups. I have followed the Middle East situation carefully for years, and this one is as black-and-white as you can get: Israel wants peace, and faces the sorts of people who drowned westerners in cages and knocked down the Twin Towers. Those terrorist groups who opposed the US and Israel are one and the same. If you supported the US going after al-Qaeda after the 9-11 attacks, then you are also on Israel's side. Biden not yet being able to get dragged that far by the looniest part of the Demkcratic Party doesn't mean that their party isn't a mess. Israel is on our side, not the leftists'. The leftists stand with all the terorrost grouls, including ISIS and al-Qaeda.
If 9-11 had happened today, those same college students in our country would be supporting al-Qaeda right now.
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
-
@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
-
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
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Man, Rubin dropped the ball on this one. Here are two questions he should have asked:
1. On what basis can you sue Google and other private companies? How is it different than a Colorado baker not wanting to make a gay wedding cake?
2. How much of the 2022 GOP underachievement was due to Trump's influence on selecting losing candidates in Michigan, Arizona, New Hampshire and other states? What should the GOP do when Trump pushes away candidates who would have won - such as Peter Meijer, Doug Ducey, David McCormick, Karrin Taylor Robson, Jaime Herrera Beutler, and many others - in favor of losing candidates such as John Gibbs, Kari Lake, Mehmet Oz, Joe Kent?
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
-
@abrakkehakka1357
Your comment is an attempt at making a gigantic, nonsensical leap. Moms For Liberty was established to oppose extended Covid lockdowns in schools, then went on to fight the distribution of pornography in schools. Those issues are wholly unrelated to one's private marital life.
You then made the wild jump to "she favors morality, but acted immorally", which takes on any definition you choose to ascribe to it.
Now, I already wrote above that she and her husband should have immediately resigned from their respective positions. But that is very different from alleging hypocrisy, obviously. To speak your language, it's like someone being a member of Habitat For Humanity not supporting the Green New Deal - "what a hypocrite! You claim to care about social justice, but are not pushing for the Green New Deal?!" Well, those two might somehow be related in your mind, but they are separate issues, meaning the charge of "hypocrisy" makes no sense in this context.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@infiniterer287
You keep rattling off Hamas talking points, demonstrating your utter ignorance of the facts.
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
Israel has tried to make peace with the people of the West Bank repeatedly, but have been met with terrorism and murder instead.
Israel actually gave over Gaza and pulled out every last Jew, yet Gaza elected Hamas and began endless terrorism against Israel.
You know, maybe Hamas shouldn't have brutally attacked Israel then decided to hide behind their own civilians. Or do you want to have a new rule: "Any terrorist group can kill as many babies and rape as many women as they want, but if they hide behind their own civilians then they get away with it." Seriously??
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
1
-
1
-
@infiniterer287
You keep rattling off Hamas talking points, demonstrating your utter ignorance of the facts.
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
Israel has tried to make peace with the people of the West Bank repeatedly, but have been met with terrorism and murder instead.
Israel actually gave over Gaza and pulled out every last Jew, yet Gaza elected Hamas and began endless terrorism against Israel.
You know, maybe Hamas shouldn't have brutally attacked Israel then decided to hide behind their own civilians. Or do you want to have a new rule: "Any terrorist group can kill as many babies and rape as many women as they want, but if they hide behind their own civilians then they get away with it." Seriously??
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@infiniterer287
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn mess.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
1
-
@infiniterer287
1. "Israel" is mentioned by name over 2500 times in the Jewish Bible, which is around 3300 years old. "Jerusalem" is mentioned 660 times.
In the Quran, written over 1500 years later, Israel is mentioned a couple of times - as the land of the Jews.
2. The "West Bank" was occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, hence the name "West Bank" - the West Bank of Jordan. It is named in the Jewish Bible as Judah and Samaria.
Israel was attacked by five countries in 1967, as those countries promised to push the Jews into the sea. Israel won the war in six days, and seized the disputed land of the "West Bank" and also Gaza, plus the Sinai and the Golan. (Yes, they expanded their tiny, indefensible borders during a defensive war. Don't start wars you can't win.) West Bank had not been the possession of any other country since the British passed it off. It was supposed to have been worked out when the British left in 1947/1948, but instead six Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948, promising to push the Jews into the sea, so the "West Bank" question was never settled, as Jordan instead occupied it. When Jordan (among others) attacked Israel in 1967 and Israel won, Israel captured that disputed area. Israel offered it back to Jordan as part of a peace deal, but even after Jordan and Israel made peace in 1994, Jordan declined the "West Bank", as they'd had their fill of the "Paletinians" (see the Black September Massacre of 1970).
Gaza was seized by Israel in that same war, from Egypt. When Egypt made peace with Israel in 1978/1979, Israel gave them the Sinai desert, a massive expanse Israel had seized in the 1967 defensive war. Egypt accepted Sinai; they turned down Gaza.
Israel would be thrilled to pass off the "West Bank" to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt, but Jordan and Egypt won't take them. Note that Egypt's wall between Egypt and Gaza is taller and stronger than Israel's wall between Israel and Gaza.
Israel gave Gaza to the "Palestinians" living there in 2005, forcibly removing every last Jew. Israel also provided aid to the Gazans. It was a tremendous chance for Gaza to flourish. Instead they elected Hamas as their government, which in turn has consistently used 80%+ of aid received into pushing terorrism against Israel. It was due to Hamas's terrorism that Israel - as well as Egypt, against whom Hamas had also used terrorism - built a wall.
3. Israel has more Eastern Jews than Western Jews living there.
4. 850,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim-run countries at the time of the 1948 War. They resettled in Israel. Stuff like this has happened in wars since time immemorial. No one else brings "refugee" status to their children, let alone their great-grandchildren.
5. In the area surrounding Israel, Israel has 57 Muslim countries around it, while Israel comprises .4% of the land-mass of the entire area, Muslim countries encompassing the other 99.6%.
6. In every 20th century British attempt at working this all out, they tried to give the Jews the Jewish areas, and the Arabs the Arab areas. Every time the Arabs complained, and every time the British expanded the land designated for Arabs, and shrank the land designated for the Jews. Are you aware that the country of Jordan (then known as Trans-Jordan) was part of the partition plan? Look at the size of Jordan, then look at how tiny Israel is in comparison. Yet the Arabs refused to let Israel be given a tiny percentage of that small perventage, while Israel agreed to every plan. The Arab countries started wars in every single decade from the 1940s onward in attempts to wipe out Israel and kill the Jews. Some of those wars ended up with the Arabs losing some of the land they'd started out with.
Had the Arabs accepted any of the two-state solutions proposed over the last century, this whole thing could have been avoided. Yet to this day the "Palestinians" refuse any deal which involves recognizing Israel's right to exist, promising to grab every inch "from the river to the sea". Therein lies the problem.
Note that in that last paragrapgh, I specified "Palestinians", as opposed to Arabs. That's because numerous Arab countries have now made peace with Israel, and found that working with Israel can be a wonderful thing. Look at Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman. Even Saudi Arabia was about to make peace with Israel, before Biden threw a monkey wrench into that one.
***
See, Israel has wanted one thing since Day One - peace. And every time they have a willing peace partner, peace happens. War only continues with those who refuse peace under any solution - besides a Final Solution for Jews.
1
-
@infiniterer287
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn mess.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@infiniterer287
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn mess.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@codyrussow170
Well, let's see. With the GOP in charge, the economy was booming, inflation was 2%, and gas was $2.30/gal. The Democrats took over, and now the country is falling apart, gas went to $5, the Taliban is running Afghanistan, Russia went into Ukraine, China is threatening Taiwan, North Korea is shooting missiles over South Korea and Japan, the border is wide open, fentanyl is everywhere, and inflation out of control. And your conclusion is you want more Democrat rule? Uh huh.
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
-
@tomaskarlicek311
Not MY truth, but THE truth. The entire Ramsey family was fully and totally cleared and exonerated. The evidence demonstrates beyond a doubt that this crime was committed by an outside intruder.
I have an interest in true crime, but I've spent more time on this story than any other - hundreds of hours, perhaps thousands. I've read numerous books on the case, legal papers, watched documentaries, etc. People still like to blame the wrong folks in famous cases - people like the Ramseys, the McCanns, Amanda Knox, etc. All are totally innocent, yet commenters everywhere still blame them anyway. Why can't people learn the cases instead of making crazy, baseless accusations?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A very partial list of Vivek's flip-flops, taken from an August article in the Washington Free Beacon:
In a matter of weeks, Ramaswamy has advocated three distinct policies toward Israel: Cutting off aid to Israel and the entire Middle East, weaning Israel off of U.S. aid by 2028, and weaning Israel off of aid only as long as it says it doesn't need the help.
But his flakiness is not limited to aid to Israel. Throughout the campaign, he has flip-flopped on at least four other issues.
On June 19, Ramaswamy cut a video wishing viewers a "happy Juneteenth." Earlier this month, he called Juneteenth a "useless" holiday that should be canceled.
In a March interview on CBS News, the candidate said that "climate change is ... real." At the Republican primary debate last week, however, Ramaswamy said "the climate change agenda is a hoax."
Ramaswamy has also taken different positions on the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. When Blaze Media's Alex Stein earlier this month asked him whether he believed that the attacks were an "inside job or exactly how the government tells us," Ramaswamy responded, "I don’t believe the government has told us the truth." Weeks later, he
emphatically said, "Of course not," when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him again whether he believed the attacks were an inside job.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur has also been unclear about whether the United States should commit to defend Taiwan. He suggested the United States should allow Xi Jinping to "go for Taiwan" after America achieves semiconductor independence by 2028, at the end of his hypothetical first term. On Monday, however, when Sean Hannity asked him whether the Taiwanese are "on their own" after 2028, Ramaswamy responded, "No," saying the United States would resume its "current posture" after reaching semiconductor independence.
*
That's the article's list, but there is plenty more, such as his flip-flop regarding January 6th.
Vivek got his billions through a pump-and-dump fraudulent pharma scheme - involving his mother, no less - and now he is busy lying every day for votes. But he's stuck at 4%, because most of us find him to be a repulsive, lying phony.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@orbitmouf
The evidence is overwhelming that being black is a massive advantage these days when applying for work, applying for college, dealing with law enforcement, and just about every other method of measurement. Brilliant folks such as Thomas Sowell, Heather Mac Donald, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Ben Shapiro and others have done all the research needed, and explained this 100 times over. Spend a little time reading up on (or watching) the evidence, which backs up what all thinking people know. There is a reason that people fake being of color these days, the opposite of how things were 50 years ago.
1
-
@auntiemeemaw3885
There was no reason whatsoever to suspect him. In every case a decision is made pretty early on whether or not the crime was likely committed by someone known to the victim, or by a stranger. This case had all the hallmarks of having been done by a stranger. Nonetheless they still spent the first few weeks on three males (all white) who were close to her, because that is still standard operating procedure. Afterward, with all the evidence pointing to an outsider, including the numerous neighbors who saw an unknown black man running nearby at that time, the focus obviously turned in that direction, as it should have.
Fact is, if there had been no signs of forced entry, as opposed to the screen being cut out, the investigation would have gone in a very different direction, obviously. That's just basic criminology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adhuna1009
Anyone who claims Israel is an apartheid state knows absolutely nothing about Israel, or is openly lying. Israeli Arabs serve as doctors, lawyers, businessmen, judges, in the Israeli military, as police officers, firefighters, medics, in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), on the Israeli Supreme Court, and everywhere else in Israeli life as full citizens, wth full voting rights, working side-by-side with their Jewish colleagues. Israeli Arab judges have convicted Israeli Jews of crimes and sent them to prison, and that includes an Israeli Arab judge who convicted a former president of Israel on corruption charges, and sentenced him to hard time. The CEO of Israel's largest bank? He's Arab too. In fact, there are more Arab doctors per capita in Israel than there are Jewish ones. "Apartheid"? What a stupid slander.
The reason that there are fences in and around the "West Bank" and around Gaza is because the "Palestinians" were and are dedicated to a life of genocidal terrorism. The fences went up after thousands of Israelis were slaughtered in attacks on civilians, such as dozens of bombings of city buses, machine gun attacks on schoolchildren, etc. Complaining that Israel has to defend itself from genocidal terrorists is pretty ridiculous, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adhuna1009
No, you really don't get it.
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
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
-
@jakobaa9031
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is not there.
The term "Palestinian" is false, recently made up for political purposes.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
1
-
1
-
@Feisal50
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is not there.
The term "Palestinian" is false, recently made up for political purposes.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hindreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
IThat's utter BS. If you mean Israel, it was Jewish land going back thousands of years. And if you mean Gaza, Israel has been trying to get rid of it for decades, but literally can't give it away. Egypt won't take it. Israel left anyway in 2006, and are now forced back in by endless terrorist attacks from Gaza.
1
-
@tablesalt2628
Legal journals have written as follows:
"Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip."
The fact is that Jews have lived continuously in Israel for well over 3000 years. The claim that the Jews usurped Arab land is simply without basis. Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917 recognized that both Jews and Arabs had been living in the area in recent years, which led to several attempts to divvy up the land. Every version was accepted by the Jews, every one rejected by the Arabs. And then the Arab states got together to "push Israel into the sea" as they put it, in 1948 and 1967 and 1973, and failed each time. Then Egypt agreed to a peace treaty with Israel in the late 1970s, a major step forward, and other states eventually followed. Not all, of course - the Muslim Brotherhood (Iran, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc.) still swears that their goal - essentially their only goal - is the elimination of Israel, the elimination of all Jews, and eventually taking over the planet for Islam and installing universal Sharia Law.
One of the sources of confusion is the term "Palestinian", and references to "Palestine". What is now called Israel was called Palestine 100 years ago, but it was called Israel thousands of years ago. When the PLO terrorist group wanted to push the false narrative in the 1960s that the Jews had removed the Arabs from their land, they renamed some Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, and Jordanians as "Palestinians", as if they had been in "Palestine" before the Jews pushed them out. It was a claim made up out of whole cloth.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ibrahimazhar2707
You keep rattling off Hamas talking points, demonstrating your utter ignorance of the facts.
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
Israel has tried to make peace with the people of the West Bank repeatedly, but have been met with terrorism and murder instead.
Israel actually gave over Gaza and pulled out every last Jew, yet Gaza elected Hamas and began endless terrorism against Israel.
You know, maybe Hamas shouldn't have brutally attacked Israel then decided to hide behind their own civilians. Or do you want to have a new rule: "Any terrorist group can kill as many babies and rape as many women as they want, but if they hide behind their own civilians then they get away with it." Seriously??
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
1
-
@RobPires
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@jackmorgan8931
Wow, you really put a smile on my face! That's a very nice comment for you to write. I won't tell my students about any self-identified "dunce", and not only because I am off for the summer. I will tell you, though, that I have had plenty of students who came in believing that they couldn't do math, or hated math, etc., only to turn it around once I had them in my class for a while. Many people in real life (my wife included) find it maddening to have me explain something to them, because I start from the very beginning, and spell out it step by step. Too much detail? Probably. On the flip side, I get aggravated when people do a lousy job explaining things, at least the way I would like to have things explained to me. When I spell something out, I like to assume that the other person knows nothing about the subject matter, and use ground zero as my starting point. Makes all the difference.
In other news, skipping students has become increasingly rare, as schools now see such an action as usually causing more problems than it solves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mansourbellahel-hajj5378
Israel is not occupying anything.
Israel was never and has never been indigenous Arab land. Look at a map of Arabia; Israel is in a different area.
The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
There are many, many more quotes like that. 60 years ago, there was no term "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years continuously.
When the British mandate was rolling to a close early in the 20th century, they sought to give land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted every offer. The Arabs turned down every one.
The day that Israel began on its own rather small part of the British mandate area, and only on the part given to Israel, they were attacked by six Arabs countries who swore to push them into the sea. That failed. Five Arab countries tried again in 1967. That failed spectacularly. Then an Egyptian-led coalition of five countries in 1973 that initially succeeded, but ultimately failed.
Every attempt at handing an Arab state to the so-called "Palestinians" has been turned down by the "Palestinians". That includes several before 1948, again in 1948, and again in 1998, and 2000, and 2008. Every time the "Palestinians" say no, demanding every inch of Israel, and the end of the Jews - at a minimum those living in Israel, although some call for the death of every Jew worldwide.
Israel offered Gaza to Egypt many times in the past. Egypt refuses to take it.
Israel left Gaza completely in 2005, and pushed to help establish it at as a peaceful home for the Gazans, aid included. Instead Hamas took over, and turned it into a terrorist nest, attacking civilians mostly in Israel, but also in Egypt. That is when both Egypt and Israel erected a separation for the protection of their own respective civilians.
Note that Egypt and Jordan were among the countries that had previously declared war against and attacked Israel. Israel has always offered peace to any Arab or Muslim country that wanted it. Egypt accepted in 1978/1979, and Israel gave back the entire Sinai desert, captured from Egypt five years earlier. Israel and Egypt currently have a very good working relationship.
Jordan accepted a peace deal in 1994. Since then they have a cold peace with Israel, but peace it still is.
Note that Israel made peace three years ago with Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE, and was coming very close to making peace with Saudi Arabia, a country which had attacked Israel many times (1948, 1967, and 1973). It was this outbreak of peace with the Sunni world (85% of Muslims) that caused Iran-backed Hamas (all of whom are Shia) to attack Israel.
Also note that the "Palestinians" have been in and out of many Muslim countries over the years, and have fomented upheaval and war in all of them, leading to their expulsion. They nearly overthrew Jordan, so Jordan killed 2,000 and expelled 30,000 "Palestinians". Beirut was once called the "Paris of the Middle East", until 1975 that is, when the "Palestinians" turned it into a civil-war torn hellhole.
Kuwait recently kicked out over 100,000 "Palestinians".
The Syrian civil war has been about Assad (truly an evil man) trying to get rid of his "Palestinian" problem. Asaad has killed hundreds of thousands of them; the world pays no attention.
There's a start for you. Anything else you would like me to clarify?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PippiOnePointOh
Sure, but we're wrong all the time, all of us. Sometimes it's really obvious and we are correct, but far more often we're guessing, as we don't know people's baseline personalities. Some people are nervous truth tellers, while others can calmly sell freezers to the eskimoes.
No one knew this 30 years ago. Modern science has proven demonstrably how bad we all are at this, even if many individuals think they are brilliant at such matters. Fact is, mindreading is a huge reason why we used to convict innocents - and sometimes execute them - with all too much frequency. Along came DNA, and hundreds have been exonerated off of death row, people placed there because police and juries could "just tell". (Too late for thousands of others.) Follow-up studies have proven the point beyond any doubt, as Malcolm Gladwell and others have written about.
1
-
@PippiOnePointOh
Sure, but we're wrong all the time, all of us. Sometimes it's really obvious and we are correct, but far more often we're guessing, as we don't know people's baseline personalities. Some people are nervous truth tellers, while others can calmly sell freezers to the eskimoes.
No one knew this 30 years ago. Modern science has proven demonstrably how bad we all are at this, even if many individuals think they are brilliant at such matters. Fact is, mindreading is a huge reason why we used to convict innocents - and sometimes execute them - with all too much frequency. Along came DNA, and hundreds have been exonerated off of death row, people placed there because police and juries could "just tell". (Too late for thousands of others.) Follow-up studies have proven the point beyond any doubt, as Malcolm Gladwell and others have written about.
1
-
@PippiOnePointOh
Sure, but we're wrong all the time, all of us. Sometimes it's really obvious and we are correct, but far more often we're guessing, as we don't know people's baseline personalities. Some people are nervous truth tellers, while others can calmly sell freezers to the inuits.
No one knew this 30 years ago. Modern science has proven demonstrably how bad we all are at this, even if many individuals think they are brilliant at such matters. Fact is, mindreading is a huge reason why we used to convict innocents - and sometimes execute them - with all too much frequency. Along came DNA, and hundreds have been exonerated off of death row, people placed there because police and juries could "just tell". (Too late for thousands of others.) Follow-up studies have proven the point beyond any doubt, as Malcolm Gladwell and others have written about.
1
-
@PippiOnePointOh
Sure, but we're wrong all the time, all of us. Sometimes it's really obvious and we are correct, but far more often we're guessing, as we don't know people's baseline personalities. Some people are nervous truth tellers, while others can calmly sell freezers on the North Pole.
No one knew this 30 years ago. Modern science has proven demonstrably how bad we all are at this, even if many individuals think they are brilliant at such matters. Fact is, mindreading is a huge reason why we used to convict innocents - and sometimes execute them - with all too much frequency. Along came DNA, and hundreds have been exonerated off of death row, people placed there because police and juries could "just tell". (Too late for thousands of others.) Follow-up studies have proven the point beyond any doubt, as Malcolm Gladwell and others have written about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nobodyimportant696
Anyone who claims Israel is an apartheid state knows absolutely nothing about Israel, or is openly lying. Israeli Arabs serve as doctors, lawyers, businessmen, judges, in the Israeli military, as police officers, firefighters, medics, in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), on the Israeli Supreme Court, and everywhere else in Israeli life as full citizens, will full voting rights, working side-by-side with their Jewish colleagues. Israeli Arab judges have convicted Israeli Jews of crimes and sent them to prison, and that includes an Israeli Arab judge who convicted a former president of Israel on corruption charges, and sentenced him to hard time. The CEO of Israel's largest bank? He's Arab too. In fact, there are more Arab doctors per capita in Israel than there are Jewish ones. "Apartheid"? What a stupid slander.
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
-
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
-
@bali0421
The fact that the UN, a pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism, anti-Jewish outfit says anything is utterly meaningless. The PLO invented the term "Palestinian" in the 1960s. It is utterly bogus.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who at that time lived in the area that became known as the "West Bank," (another invented term) said "how can I go to bed as a Jordanian one day, and wake up the next day as a Palestinian?"
Then-PLO Executive Committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview, said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for our political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since the Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people,’ to oppose Zionism.”
And those are the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nice story, but way off base.
1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints.
2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared.
3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim.
4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors.
Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
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
-
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. It took me days to click because when 48 Hours posts a "marathon", I've usually seen all three episodes already. This time, I'd seen none 👍
2. The hate poured on Jessica throughout the comment section is horribly unfair. Someone more worldly might have known not to meet with her stalker, but she was trying to do the right thing. People here claim "she was playing both sides", but that is absolutely false: She met with him after two months, he used it to try to end her relationship with Patrick, and then she got the Order of Protection. She'd avoided him like the plague for nearly half a year before the unaliving of Patrick.
3. My family and I got a court order of protection against my stalker. He would violate it, get arrested, released a few hours later, and charges dropped. Rinse and repeat. Orders of Protection don't do much if the DA's office doesn't bother enforcing them.
4. Richard Schlesinger is a new level of awesome. He's always been the best 48 Hours host, but the pilot thing raises him to a new level.
5. CeeCee Moore is amazing! With Investigative Genetic Genealogy, getting away with violent crime has become really difficult, thank God.
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@treasuretrovel3816
I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with the DR. The same thing has been known to happen in numerous college towns or spring break hangouts, examples including Myrtle Beach, SC and Charlottesville, VA.
Anyone stumbling around inebriated is a very, very easy target. And specifically for a woman walking around alone, barely able to stand up under the weight of the alcohol? She is potentially a sitting duck. Making her chances even worse would be being in a place where a predators could reasonably predict that he would find overconfident and unprepared college co-eds in large numbers. The danger is off the charts. Think about the numerous horror stories that have come out of Myrtle Beach. Or see the video of Hannah Graham barely able to remain upright in Charlotteseville, VA when Jesse Matthew is able to usher her into his car far too easily. I wish there was a program out there teaching college girls to be wary of such situations. All too many are very easy targets.
As to Sadiksha Konanke, the most likely scenario is that she stumbled drunk into the water and drowned. Anyone who read Freakonomics knows that bodies of water can be very, very unsafe places to be. Add in copious amounts of alcohol, and the numbers get pretty scary.
At the risk of being obvious, this sort of thing was not exactly an issue for most of world history. 20 year olds were not getting inebriated while blowing their parents' money on vacations, looking to have anonymous, meaningless sex with strangers. We do in fact live in very strange times. Not too long ago in the overall scheme of things, people were forced to leave school to work on the farm long before finishing grade school. Even in the wealthy post-war decade of the 1950s, time was spent studying, not partying to excess. And 20 year old were budding adults, mentally preparing to settle down with their life partner, certainly not acting like the overgrown, immature fools so commonly found today. Of course none of this could have happened without second wave feminism, the greatest practical joke ever played on a group of people since the Trojan Horse. Women found themselves "liberated" to fulfill the dreams of immature men looking for sexual playthings with no strings attached, and women were made to believe that it was all for their own benefit. The result, of course, has been disastrous for society, but particularly for women, who are at record levels of unhappiness since being "liberated" from living life in an honorable and meaningful way. And now the thousands of women who go onto social media and complain about their inability to settle down and find a man to marry them after they've spent their formative years drunkenly sleeping around, being miserable and frequently engaging in self-destructive behavior, often including self-mutilation, substance abuse, and other harmful behavior? They would be horrified if someone suggested that it was in fact their own non-feminine, non-self-respectful behavior that got them into that mess to begin with. Yes, a world in which thousands of young people converge upon party spots to engage in hedonistic behavior doesn't lead to positive outcomes, short term or long term. Who woulda thunk it?
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
-
@RK-um9tu
How exactly would I post evidence in a YT comment, particularly when they don't even allow for links? Anyone who cares about the truth can see the reams of evidence put up for all the world to see by the likes of Megyn Kelly, Douglas Murray, Ben Shapiro and many others. Finkelstein lied from the word go here, as anyone can easily find out. It took "four days" to know that over a thousand were killed? The worldwide news reports had the number at over 1,000 in under 48 hours. That is long before we get to all of Finkelstein's other absurd lies, such as calling Gaza an Israeli-administered concentration camp. Why don't "Palestinians" go out the back door? Oh, right, because Egypt doesn't want them either. Neither does Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, or any other country which has expelled them over the years, nor any of the other 50+ Muslim countries which refuses them entry. Ever wonder why that is? Ever wonder why 1.8m Muslim Arabs live comfortably as Israeli citizens while serving in the IDF, on the Israeli Supreme Court, in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), as doctors, lawyers, businessmen and police officers?
The conditions in Gaza is 100% the fault of Hamas. If the Gazans wanted peace instead of genocide of Jews, they would have been living comfortable lives for many years already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onomonopoeia
When you write a single comment that is jam-packed with wildly misleading comments mixed with outright falsehoods, it makes it difficult for me to respond without having to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so.
Your comment betrays a worldview entirely disengaged from reality. It is abundantly clear that you are simply unaware of any perspective which differs from your own highly biased one. I make sure to be highly informed from all sides, which is why I can explain the facts. That is obviously beyond your ability at this point.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
As long as you continue to exist in an echo chamber of ideas and claims from only the left, you will never be able to form coherent, persuasive arguments. Instead you will rail against millions who you not only do not understand but who you loathe for their intemperate beliefs (as you see them).
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
- Socrates
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting....and full of BS. Lead is bad, true. But all the claims about millions of deaths and vastly increased crime and rampant stupidity as a result? That is so absurd as to be laughable. Violent crime rising between the 1960s and the 1990s, and falling thereafter, has numerous causes, most of which are far more direct and obvious than the ridiculously stretched idea presented here. (The lead theory presented here is at least as detached as the one presented in Freakonomics, which is the legalization of abortion.) In fact, when criminal reform took hold, crime took off. When attitudes changed and society cracked down, crime plummeted. And since "defund the police" and rioting in big cities became a thing? Crime rates have shot up. Surprise! Or has there been an increase in lead levels recently?
Violent crime is overwhelmingly committed by poor people in inner cities, the very people who rarely see the inside of a car. And before you say, yes James, but how about all that air they are breathing in? Well, okay, how about the folks tha live a mile or two away? Right next to Harlem is the Upper West Side, and very close to the South Bronx is Riverdale. How is it that neither the UWS nor Riverdale has high crime rates? To the contrary, violent crime is nearly unheard of there.
Okay, so you'll point to lead paint in the antiquated apartment buildings. Here's my question: ALL the apartment buildings had lead paint in the 1920s. Where was all the violent crime in the '30s, '40s, and '50s?
Personally speaking, my father is one of the smartest people I ever knew, and is still accomplishing at age 94. He drove a car that took leaded gas past the point that one could find such things in gas stations. I remember at a very young age when my father would ask for leaded gas until it became increasingly difficult to find stations that sold it, and then became impossible. Yet those supposed intelligence and heart problems apparently forgot to visit my father. Me? I was born during the years that supposedly were the worst ones according this video (something like 1950 - 1980, without going back to check). I grew up in a working class NYC neighborhood, with lead paint in the walls and with unclean air just outside, and traveled in my father's car. And my IQ was measured in the 99th percentile.
Somehow all the stupid people around us have managed to create more inventions in the last 100 years than in all of prior world history combined, including those which have extended life expectancy by decades. Wild, isn't it?
The previous handful of videos I've seen on this channel were interesting, informative, and well-made, as was this one, actually. But now I am doubting everything I ever learned here, or thought I did, having just watched a piece of utter propaganda.
Lastly, if the channel host really wanted to produce a video which lives up to this one's title (save a small change, adding a "wo" in front of "man"), he could tell the world about Rachel Carson's war on pesticides, which has led to the death of more than 50m Africans and counting, with an offsetting gain of nearly or literally nothing. Somehow, though, I doubt that video will be forthcoming. Doesn't fit the narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1