Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "CNN"
channel.
-
100
-
39
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I have most of the Omicron symptoms all Winter long. Even if I get Covid at this point, I won't be asymptomatic until March, at the earliest.
P.S. Two shots and a booster to get to 75% protection? Those are terrible numbers. Are there any other vaccines out there that you take 3 times just to get to "probably safe?" Also, with the insane spread of Omicron, how effective is 75%, really? I mean, if we're going to be interacting with Omicron infected people every day, that means every, single one of those people has a 25% chance of giving you breakthrough Covid. Basically, if you interact with at least 4 infected people, you're virtually guaranteed to get Covid, statistically.
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
-
samiamrg7 First, don't bother citing mortality rates unless you're going to tell me that modern medicine has cured death. 40,000 people might die every year because of poor health coverage but the rest die in spite of it. If more people actually cared about their health, they wouldn't require so much healthcare. If you want me to keep paying for healthcare for the disenfranchised, maybe I should get a say in what they eat, what they smoke, how they exercise, etc. How about you run that compromise by them and see what they think?
Second, I agree that healthcare costs are a big deal. That doesn't mean that throwing out the baby with the bath water for the sake of "mild improvements" was the right thing to do.
Third, "Getting rid of it would hurt the American people" is way too general of a statement. Getting rid of it flat out would hurt a relatively small percentage of the American people and help a different percentage...but then, nobody is talking about getting rid of it outright without putting something else in place, are they? I'd say that taking a hard look at the flaws in the old system and how to fix them would be a good start. Competition breeds lower prices. Transparency forces honesty. Overreaching legislation just creates angry people looking to circumvent the system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+AeriosDFY2 What Country do you think this is? You say "let" as though people have to ask permission to own guns. It's a right, not a privilege. Not to mention that a system like that would require national gun confiscation, which would be the bloodiest thing to happen in this Country since the Civil War.
Okay, let's try again but we'll start with some facts:
- There a roughly 350 million privately owned guns in the US and more being bought every day.
- Roughly 1/3 of American citizens own guns.
- There are about 100 million more guns than cars in the US, yet, even though cars are MUCH more heavily regulated, cars kill more people every year.
- There were about 33,000 gun deaths in the US in 2014. Roughly 75% of gun deaths are suicides. The remaining 25% are divided up between justified police shootings, justified self defense shootings and actual homicides. Of the actual homicides, the majority are products of gang violence.
- Guns are used around 800,000 times/year to PREVENT crime in the US. This obviously includes a very large number of occurrences when the mere act of drawing a gun was enough to deter the attacker.
- Gun crime has been steadily reducing over the past twenty years.
Now, without starting a war and without denying American citizens their Constitutionally protected rights, what legal, sensible gun control laws can be put in place that would effectively reduce gun crime faster than it currently is. My personal thoughts are that we should make firearm safety classes mandatory for all Americans. However, the only way to do that Constitutionally is to include it in high school curriculums the way we did with sex ed and require a passing grade in order to graduate. I personally think this is completely reasonable since it is every American's right, whether they choose to exercise it or not. It's the only effective way to create more responsible gun owners. A nice byproduct is that those who don't like guns will at least know what they're talking about, so they won't grow up to be politicians who say things like, "This ghost gun can fire a 30 magazine round clip in half a second" or "Get a shotgun and if you hear someone outside, fire two blasts out your front door to scare them off." By the way, that last one was said by none other than our very own Vice President. Thanks, crazy Uncle Joe...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@douglaslangley9251 Congratulations, that was a terrible argument.
A. You do, in fact, have the right to free association. That means that in your personal life, you may associate (or not) with anyone you choose, for any reason. Whether or not you find that distasteful is irrelevant.
B. At no point did he refuse to associate with this reporter. He asked that she bring a male along with her on the 16 hour trip, so they would not be alone. In that case, neither one would have to worry about "he said, she said" if something happened. If a woman asked for a third party to be there to ensure nothing happened to her, that would be a completely acceptable request and nobody would bat an eye.
C. Arguing against a simple request to have a witness along is like arguing against police and citizens using cameras during their interactions, to protect them from false allegations or abuse. Would you be just as upset if he insisted on them having cameras record the entire trip?
D. Given how hard this reporter is pushing to turn this into a major issue, I'd say he was 100% correct in his desire to protect himself. She was given one, simple request in order to monopolize 16 hours of his time and rather than either agreeing or refusing, she wants to drag him over the coals on national TV for it. I can't even imagine what she would come up with after 16 hours alone with him.
Be mad if you want but it doesn't change anything. He had every right to ask for a witness and her behavior after the fact proves he was right to do so, in her case. She wasn't denied anything but when given the choice, she chose to play the part of the victim instead of playing the part of the journalist. You can thank people like her for creating the atmosphere in which more men feel like they need to protect themselves from mudslinging. Especially men with a lot to lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucky leprechaun A) I'm sorry that you don't like analogies, or understand how they work.
B) Suicide should definitely be legal. People should have the right to take their own life. They should not have the right to take someone else's life.
C) Why do Feminists pretend to be intersectional and then, as soon as abortion comes up, completely disregard all of the men who can get pregnant? You're either a trans ally or you're not.
D) By your reasoning, "men" (by your definition of the word) should have no say in education, school shootings, child care, or anything else having to do with children. Perhaps we should use your own reasoning further. Since most "women" who have abortions have never had a child prior, your reasoning dictates that they shouldn't have a say in abortion (or anything else pertaining to children,) either. After all, they don't have any more firsthand knowledge of pregnancy or childbirth than the average "man," right? Oops.
E) You're wrong. Men are restricted by the same laws as women. The difference is that most men don't have a choice to have a child, with the exception of trans-men (though, that term is really just a way to differentiate men with a uterus from those without). You're claiming some kind of victim status when you're the one with options.
Even if this decision goes through and the laws get punted back to the States, you're still going to have the choice because most politicians know it's political suicide to ban abortions in 2022. Most men still won't have a choice. If they want kids, they have to hope to some day find someone with whom they can. Then, they have to hope that person doesn't abort their child and that they don't try to claim full custody. Meanwhile, all you have to do to have a kid is claim you're on the pill. All you have to do to avoid having a kid (or an abortion) is to actually be on said pill. We both know who has the real power in all of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A) The Supreme Court is at the top of a Constitutionally created (and protected) branch of the government, known as the Judicial branch. It has no more chance of ending than the Executive branch (President, VP, etc) or Legislative branch (Congress).
B) The people of this Country have freedom as outlined by the US Constitution. The Supreme Court is the branch that looks at laws and determines whether or not they conform to said Constitution. I think what you're calling freedom is actually Anarchy. You wouldn't like Anarchy. You'd be killed within a week.
C) Those "9 old people" are the only government power standing between us and total, Federal Authoritarianism. Without them, we'd have had to overthrow the government many times over by now. Why? Because politicians crave power and without anyone to stop them, they will just take it. The Supreme Court is flawed, so it hasn't stopped all Federal overreach but we're a whole lot better off than if it didn't exist at all.
D) Stay in school, study hard, and learn the principles upon which this Country was founded. If you think SCOTUS is the enemy for upholding the Constitution, you still have a lot to learn.
1
-
1