Youtube comments of T Rex (@trex2957).

  1. 122
  2. 93
  3. 88
  4. 85
  5. 79
  6. 77
  7. 35
  8. 35
  9. 28
  10. 21
  11. 17
  12. 16
  13. 14
  14. 13
  15. 13
  16. 12
  17. 12
  18. 12
  19. 11
  20. 10
  21. 9
  22. 9
  23. 8
  24. 7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 7
  29. 7
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. Li Ke. Except you don't protect yourselves from some 90+ percent of gun deaths which are the result of suicide, accident, and murder. The single figure percentile of gun deaths that are 'legitimate' ie police action, home defense etc are a tiny minority of gun deaths. So why if you are 'sworn to protect' people are you opting for something that is statistically indefensible. Why would you need a bloody bump-stock to defend your family? It's completely impractical tool for that purpose. A shotgun accomplishes the task, especially in less than ideal conditions. A bump stock is going to overthrow an oppressive and unrepresentative government? Do you know how useful all your bump stocks would be in such an engagement? If the Iraqis had been given bump stocks would it have stopped America from invading Iraq? It's a retarded argument. When the harm outweighs the good as it so clearly does with military weapons in REAL terms then you aren't doing anything to protect your fellow Americans. Sure be in a militia, sure have guns, but make them useful ones with a purpose. Bumpstocks would be utterly meaningless in your fantasy engagement with a foreign or unrepresentative government. They would simply annihilate your hillbilly ass. You don't need to give yokels the ability to kill 30 unarmed children and their teachers to have the ability to throw of an oppressive government. If your cause is popular you could do it with muskets the way your forefathers intended it. They didn't intend in the face of lunatic violence for every American to carry weapons capable of killing dozens at a go. That kind of weapon presumes you are facing much greater numbers, and unarmed. Ideal for high schools, and utterly immaterial in the event of a tyrannical government with a military at its disposal. Anyway, you guys are about as clever as flat Earthers - nevermind.
    2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213.  @jetcox6760  'Getting rid...', 'stop...'. No one is arguing that, least of all me, it's a stupid argument, and an equally stupid counter-argument. There are countries that don't have Americas historical and ongoing racism, social injustice, poverty gap, denuded community values and social cohesion and have the same number of guns and aren't killing themselves anywhere near as much. You will never have the social cohesion, and sense of community found in places like (for example) Switzerland, which has a higher per capital gun ownership, but a fraction of the gun fatality rate. Yes, people will kill each other (and themselves) without guns and have done for thousands of years, but far less successfully and less often. LESS guns, and guns being harder to get for those people likely to kill themselves and others DOES have a provable impact on gun and murder rates. Of course the NRA and pro-gun ideologues can't admit that the MORE guns that get produced and sold contributes to gun violence, and even if sold legally, to greater numbers of black market firearms that will be used in crimes. This is because the NRA is morally bankrupt, and largely speaks to idiots. Opting to selectively bann KNOWN criminals or people with KNOWN mental health issues and ignore the VOLUME of weapons being forced upon the general populace is just a means to avoid truth of gun ownership promoting violence. To argue differently is either to argue out of ignorance, or intellectual dishonesty... Which is it..? In a bar where everyone is angry and a fight is going to start, yes, someone might get killed, they are much more likely to have non-fatal wounds and far less likely to initiate lethal force against another. That's just some basic sense. Guns represent power. To say that if there were no guns people would think the same way about a knife, or a sword, or any other weapon is plainly stupid. Guns have currency. They are MARKETED at people. Movies tell us they solve societies problems. They tame the west, and the savage man... People do not just go get a knife when their isn't a gun around. That bullshit is not supported by crime statistics ANYWHERE. Yes, people do get killed in countries with low gun ownership, but a whole lot less successfully, a lot lot less often,. I mean just look at the murder rate in the US and compare how many use a gun, with how many use say a knife, their fist, or their car. The reason they use guns is it is easier, when it is EASIER, it happens MORE OFTEN. I mean are crayons required here? The gun makes it EASY to escalate and complete murder, or suicide. Which is why it is SO good for killing yourself, and why Americans (especially American males) are so 'good' at killing themselves. America is pissed off and paranoid, and when you compare places with 1/10th the murder/gun ownership rate the dissemination of firearms to such a populace can only be argued to be healthy and wise by the morbidly stupid. Start reducing the production and sale of firearms, particularly non-sporting and military type weapons, and the number available to commit crimes with, and the crime rate, will go down. Recognise that firearms are not tools for a better society - they never have been. Personally, I find the argument that more guns means more democracy or a resistance to tyranny the harshest indictment of the intelligence of the American people. How many tyrants have cropped up in countries with high levels of private gun ownership? Most of them... But the gun nuts harp back to Nazi Germany... well, Nazi Germany was 99% Christian. Should we ban Christianity too? Selective facts there.. . How effective would the idiots that subscribe to gun=democracy be in resisting their own military with a budget of 550 million? Or any other major power? Are AR-15s going to prevent you getting killed by a drone. Killed by tank? A nuke? Is owning more than one going to make your democracy safer? Or does it just make you feel slightly less insecure, or more tough... It's idiot stuff.
    1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276.  @SimonO1919  It's interesting that you identify a threat to the Matrix franchise from contemporary gender politics - given the only reason we were given a hero like neo / trinity in the original matrix was the door opening to them as filmgoers turned off to uber-masculine testosterone-loaded heroes like we were given in the 80's. So The Matrix, and a someone like Keannu Reeves moving from comedy into action movies as the hero illustrates the direct effect of contemporary ideas of gender affecting film broadly. Why not have a transexual hispanic-korean lead..? What's the threat? That they are unbelievable because they are a minority? So why have ANY minorities?? It's a far cry from the engineered bullshit they pulled with Ghostbusters! Of course The Matrix was intended to be a trilogy, but Alien wasn't. It was standalone film. It only became a franchise much later, and then people started generating 'rules' for the franchise. Personally I can't stand franchises and what it forces films to become/live up to/exceed. Alien was a great film in it's own right, and so was Aliens, the rest... personally I think they are at best average, and at worst overblown rubbish (Prometheus and Covenant). Most franchises have good films and much worse films. I love the original Superman film, and it slides downhill with each sequel, increasingly rapidly. Sometimes a film in the middle (for whatever reason(s)) appeals more than the original. I would just suggest to try and judge each film on its merits. The Godfather is a great example of a trilogy that never should have been, and should ONLY be watched as a duology. The third didn't have Robert Evans producing ( if we give Evans any credit is pretty much WHY the first two were great) and Ford Coppola couldn't secure Winona Ryder for a lead role (GAG) case his own daughter (producing a film-destroyingly terrible performance). What's left is some crap about Andy Garcia, gang violence, and a whole HEAP of nostalgia... Terrible. Do I lament them 'ruining' the franchise just because Ford Copolla can't direct with without a producer telling him what to do, and cast his own untalented and just-not-attractive-enough daughter in the lead? No. I simply pretend it doesn't exist. Much as I will nearly all of the Marvel films, except Ironman and Guardians, and maybe the first and third Thor movies, and the first Spiderman and a few others... Like you I can't not watch the Matrix sequels once I start... No matter how silly and self-absorbed they (and their creators) are.
    1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. Well, the majority of filmmakers are educated liberals. That isn't a conspiracy it's just the arts aren't as attractive to political conservatives I'd wager. Think back to high school - who was in the drama club, who was acting from an early age. There have been many very successful right wing movie makers and actors - thinking John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston, but a more complete list is here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Hollywood_conservatives Remember the monologue at the end of Rambo... No liberal produced that. I'd question whether a film made by a liberal filmmaker 'pushes' a liberal agenda as much as it simply is the product of a liberal filmmaker the vision of that filmmaker. And I enjoy seeing a film BY someone, by an auteur, not some faceless unrecognisable "entertainment product"... I find Disney very interesting for a reading of such things, most Disney films traditionally aligned very tidily with the views of the Nazi party... Until around the 90's at least. So yes, even Disney got corrupted by the liberal influence - but don't worry hetero-sexual couple bonding, and homosexual villains still abound. Even documentaries are slanted by the process of producing them. I don't like preachy films, and in most films subtext is awful. At the very least if you are reasonable, if your finding offense is reasonable, then that just means the pendulum has swung too far in the left and will correct in time. This is why you have situations like O.J. Simpson being acquitted (only the ignorant maintain his innocence), and Donald Trump being elected and people do this day thinking he is a great man worthy of his position. Simply, the pendulum swung too far and people rejected the LA Police by rioting and acquitting a patently obvious spousal abuser/murderer, and electing a buffoon to "MAGA"... and once the pendulum has swung back from that it'll be even worse liberal horseshit the likes of which you cannot conceive.
    1
  283.  @SimonO1919  Actually Stallone and Dolph and Schwarzenegger etc can very reasonably be interpreted as America's path to psychic recovery after Vietnam. Again, just listen to the monologue of Rambo First Blood... That was under Reagan... you remember - when AIDS was "sent by god" to wipe out homosexuals..., but it was subsequently revealed that it was inconveniently NOT sent by God at all and infected half of Africa and tens of thousands of American heterosexuals... Helped in no small way by the direct actions (or inactions..) of those two gigantic dildos, The Pope, and Ronald Reagan. Then the pendulum swung to the democrats... and liberal values and a rejection of the uber-male was the flavor of the day, and we had Neo... I think it naive to look at a mass produced, mass marketed product like the action movie and think it not a politically influenced product, and that influence being in flux BETWEEN the conservative AND liberal, not just one political persuasion... Film doesn't suddenly GET political when you notice liberal messaging. Watch some lesser John Wayne or Steven Segal films. They are basically an excuse to watch the white hero murder or torture Mexicans/Indians/Japanese/Cajuns/whoever. Hell, how many minorities does Arnold kill in Commando.? He goes to an island and basically murders EVERYONE... Again, I LOVE commando. In fact I love nearly all of Arnold's films. But I don't kid myself about the latent politics of those movies - nor Steven Segal rolling about the Bronx break the legs of stereotyped hispanic gangbangers... It's all right wing fascistic horseshit that tells us societies woes can be fixed with the gun... Which is the political message of the NRA, which conservatives STILL believe despite America leading the Western world in murder rates and gun fatalities. ' So yeah, I very much dispute an argument that cinema is ostensible a liberal left wing product, what has happened is the bastion of right wing values The Action movie, has finally been brought to task and dragged into the 21st century.
    1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. Well, 2 points 1) self-entitled doesn't make sense, just say 'entitled', you can't be 'entitled' for someone else, otherwise they would be entitled - not you, please never ever say "self-entitled". It's like instead of saying you're selfish, saying instead you're self-selfish. Ok? 2) There is something called social disparity. It's a real thing, and it results from all manner of causes. Like for instance kidnapping people of a particular colour from one continent, enslaving them for generations and brutalising them for generations, and then over about 150 years slowly drip feeding them civil liberties and rights OTHER people take for granted. That sort of thing results in SOCIAL DISPARITY. It doesn't get fixed easily or quickly. So yes, individuals need to be accountable for their individual actions, but what ACTUALLY happens when there is significant social disparity is that systems come into effect to reinforce that disparity. For instance there are plenty of studies that show that people from a particular ethnicity, more inclined to poverty/crime, will also be the worst served by the justice system and more likely to be arrested in the first place for the SAME crime. Profiling works for cops because it gets results, the effect of profiling is that if you are one of the people being racially profiled if you commit the same crime you are more likely to go to jail for it. In that fact is the injustice. If you are a rich friend of Arnold Schwarzenegger and your son is convicted as an accomplice to homicide, you might just get him pardoned because you have access to resources the average person doesn't. Similarly if you are a white guy dressed smart with a good lawyer you might escape justice by not being stopped in the first place. It's going to be much harder if you are a poor black person with an ignorance of your rights and no access to a decent legal attorney... So yeah, I don't look at an individual that murders someone and say "not his fault because he is a minority or his actions are the direct result of historic racism. However, when the incarcerations rates, and offending rates are much higher I do understand that if he was NOT born into THAT society, and with THAT ethnicity, then there's probably a 30-50% chance that he would either never have done it, or if he had got away with it.
    1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1