Youtube comments of Night Raven (@GiRR007).
-
23000
-
4700
-
2300
-
1300
-
837
-
687
-
479
-
470
-
436
-
312
-
271
-
228
-
201
-
201
-
164
-
162
-
145
-
140
-
138
-
131
-
126
-
116
-
111
-
108
-
106
-
106
-
103
-
102
-
100
-
96
-
93
-
87
-
85
-
84
-
78
-
77
-
75
-
73
-
73
-
71
-
71
-
69
-
65
-
63
-
57
-
57
-
53
-
51
-
49
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nachfullbarertrank5230 2:20 It is very disingenuous to call a non-disclosure agreement…hush money. Non-disclosure agreements are not illegal or else literally thousands businesses in the United States would be dissolved by now.
2:30 Do you have any evidence that Micheal Cohen did all of those things under the command of the president? And specifically in regards to contributing to a presidential campaign as it is not illegal to make campaign contributions unless you are from another country. Let alone establishing intent to sabotage a rival’s campaign is very shaky. Especially considering that third parties have reportedly spied on trumps campaign. Where is the rule of law in those cases?
3:06 Trump didn't try to use that money to bribe anyone, that money was already going to Ukraine and trump simply talked to the Ukrainian president in a request to investigate reports of corruption which is not illegal. If you actually cared about or rule of law you would endorse trump trying to investigate claims of corruption. Especially since we now know that Joe Biden's son Hunter has been actually PROVEN to have taken money from certain Russian officials. Joe Biden also had influence in the Ukrainian government as he handled relations with Ukraine during Obamas presidency, under which time Hunter Biden was receive a large amount of funding for working as a board director for a Ukrainian-owned private energy company despite him not having required qualifications for said position. So it seems as if said investigations were well warranted. Very convenient to bring this topic of corruption up now even after we know for a fact know that Hunter Biden is involved with some corruption involving the Russian government. There were no threats of withholding funding. Even if it Trump definitively stated that he was going to of withhold funds from the Ukrainian government in exchange for aid in an investigation involving corruption with the previous administration doing so is completely within the president of the United States power if he believes it to be necessary to get rid of corruption. That is common practice in international politics; Countries can withhold funds from others for political gain. This includes such things as trade tariffs, taxing certain goods, and yes withholding funding. It was not a bribe, it was not black mail, there was and still is no evidence of such things and again even if there were any declarations of financial withholdings those claims wouldn't even fit the definition of a bribe in this context. Not even the U.S. senate had any evidence of bribes or blackmail hence why Trump was acquitted from those slanderous accusations.
3:33 The "whistle blower" lied about the contents on the Trumps call with the Ukrainian president, not only that but the whistle blower was also dangerously close to espionage while in the process of gaining said information. This wouldn’t be new since we know there have been cases of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS spying on trumps campaign before, which you touch upon later. So yes the “whistle blower” deserves to be punished for this. There was no evidence of Trump having actually committed any of the crimes he was accused of like bribery or blackmail and thus he was acquitted as our legal system demands. You are the one who strangely who wants to twist what our legal system represents to fit your own agenda. It’s innocent until proven guilty for a reason. If you actually respected our rule of law you surly wouldn’t deny this fact.
4:39 The F.B.I. director should have been fired because he colluded with the previously Obama administration to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign. Compare that to Trump who we now know never colluded with Russia just as he claimed from the start. You have no evidence that the trump foundation solicit illegal hacking for their personal gain or a political rival’s downfall. Not only that but he has also put into action several orders in regards to Russia’s involvement in international affairs in relation to other countries militaries.
6:35 Trump himself said that his bank account in china is old and had been shut down before he even became president in the most recent debate. Again not to mention Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden actually has recently been proven to have taken money from Russian officials for as of yet undisclosed reasons.
6:55 Trump had every right to disperse those protestors, there are limits to how people can protest and, blocking access to or from a government building is one of those limits. They shouldn’t have been protesting there in the first place.
7:02 On a whim?! People were being killed and buildings were being burned down and you call that on a whim?! There were full blown riots happening in those cities, and so the Mayors of those cities’ asked the president for aid in quelling the civil anarchy. The National Guard was sent in to regain control and order in the city as any president is well within their rights to do. How can you be so disingenuous as to say that it was on a whim?
8:06 What trump says in a private conversation 15 ago with his friends in a situation where he doesn’t know that he is being recorded is far from an admission of sexual assault. You don’t know if it was actually true or just simple posturing between male friends in a private setting. Sure it’s a raunchy thing to say; you can even call him an asshole for saying it. But that is not an admission of sexual assault. You know as well as I do a statement under conditions like those would NEVER hold up in court.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dcgreenspro 2:20 It is very disingenuous to call a non-disclosure agreement…hush money. Non-disclosure agreements are not illegal or else literally thousands businesses in the United States would be dissolved by now.
2:30 Was there any hard evidence that Micheal Cohen did all of those things under the command of the president? And specifically in regards to contributing to a presidential campaign as it is not illegal to make campaign contributions unless you are from another country. Let alone establishing intent to sabotage a rival’s campaign is very shaky. Especially considering that third parties have reportedly spied on trumps campaign. Where is the rule of law in those cases?
3:06 Trump didn't try to use that money to bribe anyone, that money was already going to Ukraine and trump simply talked to the Ukrainian president in a request to investigate reports of corruption which is not illegal. If you actually cared about or rule of law you would endorse trump trying to investigate claims of corruption. Especially since we now know that Joe Biden's son Hunter has been actually PROVEN to have taken money from certain Russian officials. Joe Biden also had influence in the Ukrainian government as he handled relations with Ukraine during Obamas presidency, under which time Hunter Biden was receive a large amount of funding for working as a board director for a Ukrainian-owned private energy company despite him not having required qualifications for said position. So it seems as if said investigations were well warranted. Very convenient to bring this topic of corruption up now even after we know for a fact know that Hunter Biden is involved with some corruption involving the Russian government. There were no threats of withholding funding. Even if it Trump definitively stated that he was going to of withhold funds from the Ukrainian government in exchange for aid in an investigation involving corruption with the previous administration doing so is completely within the president of the United States power if he believes it to be necessary to get rid of corruption. That is common practice in international politics; Countries can withhold funds from others for political gain. This includes such things as trade tariffs, taxing certain goods, and yes withholding funding. It was not a bribe, it was not black mail, there was and still is no evidence of such things and again even if there were any declarations of financial withholdings those claims wouldn't even fit the definition of a bribe in this context. Not even the U.S. senate had any evidence of bribes or blackmail hence why Trump was acquitted from those slanderous accusations.
3:33 The "whistle blower" lied about the contents on the Trumps call with the Ukrainian president, not only that but the whistle blower was also dangerously close to espionage while in the process of gaining said information. This wouldn’t be new since we know there have been cases of GOVERMENT OFFICALS spying on trumps campaign before, which you touch upon later. So yes the “whistle blower” deserves to be punished for this. There was no evidence of Trump having actually committed any of the crimes he was accused of like bribery or blackmail and thus he was acquitted as our legal system demands.
4:39 The F.B.I. director should have been fired because he colluded with the previously Obama administration to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign. Compare that to Trump who we now know never colluded with Russia just as he claimed from the start. There was no evidence that the trump foundation solicit illegal hacking for their personal gain or a political rival’s downfall. Not only that but he has also put into action several orders in regards to Russia’s involvement in international affairs in relation to other countries militaries.
6:35 Trump himself said that his bank account in china is old and had been shut down before he even became president in the most recent debate. Again not to mention Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden actually has recently been proven to have taken money from Russian officials for as of yet undisclosed reasons.
6:55 Trump had every right to disperse those protestors, there are limits to how people can protest and, blocking access to or from a government building is one of those limits. They shouldn’t have been protesting there in the first place.
7:02 On a whim?! People were being killed and buildings were being burned down and he calls that on a whim?! There were full blown riots happening in those cities, and so the Mayors of those cities’ asked the president for aid in quelling the civil anarchy. The National Guard was sent in to regain control and order in the city as any president is well within their rights to do. How can you be so disingenuous as to say that it was on a whim?
8:06 What trump says in a private conversation 15 ago with his friends in a situation where he doesn’t know that he is being recorded is far from an admission of sexual assault. You don’t know if it was actually true or just simple posturing between male friends in a private setting. Sure it’s a raunchy thing to say; you can even call him an asshole for saying it. But that is not an admission of sexual assault.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@roscojenkins7451 Billionaires literally could not exist without society allowing them to exist by giving them money in exchange for what ever product they are selling. If someone is willing to buy something worth 10$ for 200$ thats on them not the bilionare. Apperntly they see that the value of said item is worth 200$ instead of just what ever the base material cost of the item is. Nothing has inherent value, the only value something has is the subjective value people decided to give it. No one is forcing people to pay what ever amount for an item, its THEIR money and they are CHOOSING to give said money over to someone and help make them a billionare. No one is being screwed over.
The workers only get payed for building the chair, thats it, they dont own the chair, the person who paid for the materials owns the chair. The OWNER was the one who invested their own capital into what ever it is they are making, the workers didnt invest any capital of their own. Workers get paid regardless of of the chair sells or not. Without the person who hirers the workers they wouldn't be doing anything and its much eaiser to get more workers than it is to get people to buy the chair. Just because someone builds something doesn't now give them owner ship of that thing. That would be like if you paid to have a house built and you bought all the materials and land and property rights, Just becuase someone else assembled the house THEY now own it? Why? Theyve already been paid for their part in helping create the house. The workers agree to a set price to merely put together materials that are already owned by someone else. They are getting paid for assembly, not getting paid for the item, BY CHOICE might I reiterate, they don't own the item. If they wanted to get paid more they can invest their own capital into buying the chairs.
4
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Tespri "there is no requirement that businesses with fewer than 50 employees offer coverage to their workers. Many do anyway, but nearly half of all businesses with 3 to 49 workers do not offer health benefits" You acknowledging that there are exceptions disproves your original statement.
You seem to be having a very hard to understanding the definitions of the words you us. Emergency: a serious, UNEXPECTED, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action. Things like cancer in insulin deficiency's aren't unexpected and dont require immediate action and thus are regarded as medical emergencies.
Once again you acknowledging that the government doesn't always pay out disproves your original statement, your are contradicting your self constantly, I am quite sure you dont actually know what you are talking about in this context now.
You aren't making any arguments, you are just stating blatantly false information such as "the government always paying out medical expenses" or "Its not natural for countries to take on debt" or "Hospitals always treat people no matter what" ect ect. You are constantly lying and contradicting yourself, all ive done is debunk your statements.
We aren't talking about hyperinflation, we are talking about debt in general, stop trying to pivot away from the main point. Literally every country has some debt, and almost none of them are undergoing hyper inflation. Once again, your statements are proven wrong.
You said you used google to disprove my statement of every country having debt, so go ahead, give me an example of a country with no debt. The burden of proof is actually on you to state a country that doesn't have any debt at all.
Once again you pivot away from the point of people taking out loans they cant handle. A banks reasoning for giving out the loan is irrelevant, this is yet another example of you ignoring reality and only seeing things as you want them to be instead of how they are. The FACT is that people ARE being given loans that they will never be able to pay back. If you try to ignore that then YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST. Stop trying to pivot away from the main point.
Like seriously think about the logic of what your saying. If banks would never grant loans to people who couldnt pay them back, then how do people EVER get trapped under debt they will never be able to pay for? If the bank never grants loans to those who cant pay them then obviously that must mean that no one has any debt they cant payback right? Except YOU KNOW thats false because there are THOUSANDS of people who are under a debt that they will never be able to pay back. So again your just blatantly lying again.
Seriously starting to question if you aren't just a bot that is regurgitating talking points. And if you are a real person thank god people like you arent listened to when it comes to making decisions on how to manage a countries economy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2:20 It is very disingenuous to call a non-disclosure agreement…hush money. Non-disclosure agreements are not illegal or else literally thousands businesses in the United States would be dissolved by now.
2:30 Do you have any evidence that Micheal Cohen did all of those things under the command of the president? And specifically in regards to contributing to a presidential campaign as it is not illegal to make campaign contributions unless you are from another country. Let alone establishing intent to sabotage a rival’s campaign is very shaky. Especially considering that third parties have reportedly spied on trumps campaign. Where is the rule of law in those cases?
3:06 Trump didn't try to use that money to bribe anyone, that money was already going to Ukraine and trump simply talked to the Ukrainian president in a request to investigate reports of corruption which is not illegal. If you actually cared about or rule of law you would endorse trump trying to investigate claims of corruption. Especially since we now know that Joe Biden's son Hunter has been actually PROVEN to have taken money from certain Russian officials. Joe Biden also had influence in the Ukrainian government as he handled relations with Ukraine during Obamas presidency, under which time Hunter Biden was receive a large amount of funding for working as a board director for a Ukrainian-owned private energy company despite him not having required qualifications for said position. So it seems as if said investigations were well warranted. Very convenient for you to bring this topic of corruption up now even after we know for a fact know that Hunter Biden is involved with some corruption involving the Russian government. There were no threats of withholding funding. Even if it Trump definitively stated that he was going to of withhold funds from the Ukrainian government in exchange for aid in an investigation involving corruption with the previous administration doing so is completely within the president of the United States power if he believes it to be necessary to get rid of corruption. That is common practice in international politics; Countries can withhold funds from others for political gain. This includes such things as trade tariffs, taxing certain goods, and yes withholding funding. It was not a bribe, it was not black mail, there was and still is no evidence of such things and again even if there were any declarations of financial withholdings those claims wouldn't even fit the definition of a bribe in this context. Not even the U.S. senate had any evidence of bribes or blackmail hence why Trump was acquitted from those slanderous accusations.
3:33 The "whistle blower" lied about the contents on the Trumps call with the Ukrainian president, not only that but the whistle blower was also dangerously close to espionage while in the process of gaining said information. This wouldn’t be new since we know there have been cases of GOVERMENT OFFICALS spying on trumps campaign before, which you touch upon later. So yes the “whistle blower” deserves to be punished for this. There was no evidence of Trump having actually committed any of the crimes he was accused of like bribery or blackmail and thus he was acquitted as our legal system demands. You are the one who strangely who wants to twist what our legal system represents to fit your own agenda. It’s innocent until proven guilty for a reason. If you actually respected our rule of law you surly wouldn’t deny this fact.
4:39 The F.B.I. director should have been fired because he colluded with the previously Obama administration to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign. Compare that to Trump who we now know never colluded with Russia just as he claimed from the start. You have no evidence that the trump foundation solicit illegal hacking for their personal gain or a political rival’s downfall. Not only that but he has also put into action several orders in regards to Russia’s involvement in international affairs in relation to other countries militaries.
6:35 Trump himself said that his bank account in china is old and had been shut down before he even became president in the most recent debate. Again not to mention Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden actually has recently been proven to have taken money from Russian officials for as of yet undisclosed reasons.
6:55 Trump had every right to disperse those protestors, there are limits to how people can protest and, blocking access to or from a government building is one of those limits. They shouldn’t have been protesting there in the first place.
7:02 On a whim?! People were being killed and buildings were being burned down and you call that on a whim?! There were full blown riots happening in those cities, and so the Mayors of those cities’ asked the president for aid in quelling the civil anarchy. The National Guard was sent in to regain control and order in the city as any president is well within their rights to do. How can you be so disingenuous as to say that it was on a whim? At one point I may have actually respected you despite knowing that you were in opposition to me politically but seeing as how you are capable of throwing away any morality in an attempt to deceive people for your own political gain has made me lose all respect for you.
8:06 What trump says in a private conversation 15 ago with his friends in a situation where he doesn’t know that he is being recorded is far from an admission of sexual assault. You don’t know if it was actually true or just simple posturing between male friends in a private setting. Sure it’s a raunchy thing to say; you can even call him an asshole for saying it. But that is not an admission of sexual assault. You know as well as I do a statement under conditions like those would NEVER hold up in court.
I do believe in our rule of law, you however only seem to believe in it when it benefits you, and when you are proven wrong you immediately jump to something being illegitimate. I didn’t know your political bias was so extreme that you would stoop to something as low as this.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hifuutorian 2:20 It is very disingenuous to call a non-disclosure agreement…hush money. Non-disclosure agreements are not illegal or else literally thousands businesses in the United States would be dissolved by now.
2:30 Do you have any evidence that Micheal Cohen did all of those things under the command of the president? And specifically in regards to contributing to a presidential campaign as it is not illegal to make campaign contributions unless you are from another country. Let alone establishing intent to sabotage a rival’s campaign is very shaky. Especially considering that third parties have reportedly spied on trumps campaign. Where is the rule of law in those cases?
3:06 Trump didn't try to use that money to bribe anyone, that money was already going to Ukraine and trump simply talked to the Ukrainian president in a request to investigate reports of corruption which is not illegal. If you actually cared about or rule of law you would endorse trump trying to investigate claims of corruption. Especially since we now know that Joe Biden's son Hunter has been actually PROVEN to have taken money from certain Russian officials. Joe Biden also had influence in the Ukrainian government as he handled relations with Ukraine during Obamas presidency, under which time Hunter Biden was receive a large amount of funding for working as a board director for a Ukrainian-owned private energy company despite him not having required qualifications for said position. So it seems as if said investigations were well warranted. Very convenient to bring this topic of corruption up now even after we know for a fact know that Hunter Biden is involved with some corruption involving the Russian government. There were no threats of withholding funding. Even if it Trump definitively stated that he was going to of withhold funds from the Ukrainian government in exchange for aid in an investigation involving corruption with the previous administration doing so is completely within the president of the United States power if he believes it to be necessary to get rid of corruption. That is common practice in international politics; Countries can withhold funds from others for political gain. This includes such things as trade tariffs, taxing certain goods, and yes withholding funding. It was not a bribe, it was not black mail, there was and still is no evidence of such things and again even if there were any declarations of financial withholdings those claims wouldn't even fit the definition of a bribe in this context. Not even the U.S. senate had any evidence of bribes or blackmail hence why Trump was acquitted from those slanderous accusations.
3:33 The "whistle blower" lied about the contents on the Trumps call with the Ukrainian president, not only that but the whistle blower was also dangerously close to espionage while in the process of gaining said information. This wouldn’t be new since we know there have been cases of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS spying on trumps campaign before, which you touch upon later. So yes the “whistle blower” deserves to be punished for this. There was no evidence of Trump having actually committed any of the crimes he was accused of like bribery or blackmail and thus he was acquitted as our legal system demands. You are the one who strangely who wants to twist what our legal system represents to fit your own agenda. It’s innocent until proven guilty for a reason. If you actually respected our rule of law you surly wouldn’t deny this fact.
4:39 The F.B.I. director should have been fired because he colluded with the previously Obama administration to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign. Compare that to Trump who we now know never colluded with Russia just as he claimed from the start. You have no evidence that the trump foundation solicit illegal hacking for their personal gain or a political rival’s downfall. Not only that but he has also put into action several orders in regards to Russia’s involvement in international affairs in relation to other countries militaries.
6:35 Trump himself said that his bank account in china is old and had been shut down before he even became president in the most recent debate. Again not to mention Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden actually has recently been proven to have taken money from Russian officials for as of yet undisclosed reasons.
6:55 Trump had every right to disperse those protestors, there are limits to how people can protest and, blocking access to or from a government building is one of those limits. They shouldn’t have been protesting there in the first place.
7:02 On a whim?! People were being killed and buildings were being burned down and you call that on a whim?! There were full blown riots happening in those cities, and so the Mayors of those cities’ asked the president for aid in quelling the civil anarchy. The National Guard was sent in to regain control and order in the city as any president is well within their rights to do. How can you be so disingenuous as to say that it was on a whim?
8:06 What trump says in a private conversation 15 ago with his friends in a situation where he doesn’t know that he is being recorded is far from an admission of sexual assault. You don’t know if it was actually true or just simple posturing between male friends in a private setting. Sure it’s a raunchy thing to say; you can even call him an asshole for saying it. But that is not an admission of sexual assault. You know as well as I do a statement under conditions like those would NEVER hold up in court.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tylerlaroche2509 Tell that to the people spend alot of their income on things like new phones and shoes... Rural areas don't NEED to carry that many people, They have so much space already they dont need to squish people so close together. If people want to live a non impoverished life style they have the capability of doing that, its up to them not the state. They are responsible for themselves. It IS a fact of reality some people will just naturally become impoverished due to their own choices, they may not WANT to, but will lead themselves down that road anyway through any number of means. Its not product of the system, the system isnt responsible for keeping people out of poverty, its their simply to give them the opportunity to lift THEMSELVES out of poverty, and not all of them are willing to do that. Not being impoverished isnt a right, its a privleged, something a person has to work for. Its not about working hard either, I can work hard making something useless and thus my work will be useless. People arent cattle, human work doesn't comprise of just manual labor, people should be using the thing that separates them from animals ie their brains, work smarter not harder.
2
-
@tylerlaroche2509 Well of course no one thing is gonna be able to lift an entire nation out of poverty, but people moving to less expensive areas sure would help ALOT was more so my point. When it comes to peoples individual responsibilities, things that cause people to become impoverished can very well be beyond their control, however ESCAPING said poverty is always possible for an individual, thus when it comes to STAYING in poverty yes I think at a certain point a person has no one to blame but themselves. And yes I agree just because its possible for people to escape poverty doesn't mean everyone in the whole nation will escape poverty. However if we are talking about ideals, if we truly did somehow have the "smartest most ambitious populace in the world where every single person does everything in their power to succeed" I think at that point we would not have any poverty. There would more than likely still be economic classes but poverty in such a hypothetical I think wouldn't exist. The system isnt a zero sum game, just because someone succeeds doesn't mean someone else has to fail. Also maybe lazy isnt quite accurate, more like not as motivated as they could be, or complacent in how things are. Not everyone starts off at the same level socially so yes some are going to have a harder time escaping poverty but it is very much still possible and within their control. If it were a goal of the country to "help our fellow citizens achieve" it may be virtuous but I think would end up bringing down the people who were already achieving on their own. I think it best to let everyone progress on their own and at their own pace and aid them when we can instead of it being a societal compulsion, people should be responsible for themselves first and foremost. Even someone in 100,000 in debt can lift them selves out of poverty, it would be very difficult but far from impossible. The system itself isn't suppressing anyone, some people just are going to have a naturally tougher time simply due to the circumstances of their birth. But thats not really the systems fault, its not as if it was intentionally designed to suppress those people i dont believe, it just favors certain things.
2
-
2
-
@tylerlaroche2509 And those countries have like 1/10th the population size of America making them much less complex socially not to mention how much the US spends on its military can sometimes be ever more than those entire countries GDP and the only reason those countries are safe at all is because of americas military which is basically used as a world police which is wrong imo. Redlining is no longer a thing in modern times, and whether it was ever a thing or not there would still be massive disparities between people. "generational wealth" is irrelevant in this context since most people in the country dont have the kind of "generational wealth" you are referring to. The system very much does afford everyone OPPURTUNITY. But opportunity does not mean you get guarantees, its simply a chance. And saying something is a social construct when we live in a society doesn't mean anything, society is a social construct as is everything thats apart of it, it shouldnt matter if its a social construct or not as its effects are very much real. It could be easier for people better their circumstances but if thats what you want then you would want the government stepping OUT of peoples way as much as possible since its exclusively the government that has the power to make it intentionally harder for people to better their circumstances. A society being more or less just doesn't give it more or less control over reality. In reality bad things are gonna happen to people that are beyond their control forever and always. Its just an unfortunate fact of life, but just because bad things happen to some people doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to share in their suffering when they had nothing to do with it. That's not just, its quite the opposite I find actually, its evil. The "system" isn't just or unjust it just is, any kind of moral judgements that can be made are up to actual people, not the system, you cant use "the system" as an excuse for peoples bad behaviors, humans aren't mindless drones enslaved to some system they are individuals. My point about people moving to less expensive areas is that since those areas are less expensive there would be less poverty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexxx4434 As I said fairness isn't the most important value, there are other values to consider, and capitalism in particular prioritizes freedom over fairness. But even by historical standards the current system is EXTREMELY fair compared to its contemporary's and every other system that came before it before it at least in the US. Capitalism gives a chance, a chance is not a guarantee. A chance on its own doesn't and shouldn't give people anything, its something people take advantage of to do things for THEMSELVES and is the best that can be hoped for in regards to seeking "fairness". Not everyone will be able to take advantage of the opportunities they were given but that doesn't mean they didn't have said opportunities. Discrimination is irrelevant in such a case because discrimination isn't part of capitalism, discrimination is its own thing that can exist in literally any economic system. Trying to make the system arbitrarily "more fair" would result in the opposite happening as we have already seen.
And no, the poor aren't getting poorer under capitalism, quite the opposite in fact. Under capitalism not only are rich are getting richer but the poor are ALSO getting richer. Not at the exact same rate as each other since as I said life's not fair, but every one is still getting richer through capitalism, simply look back to how bad things were in the past before capitalism. You'd rather everyone be equally poor instead of everyone becoming more wealthy just because some get more wealth than others? That doesn't sound like a concern for fairness, it sounds like envy. Capitalism hasn't "run its course" not even close, as I said until humans as a species change capitalism is the best system for our civilizations currently. As you hinted at, capitalism more than any other economic system takes human nature into account THE MOST, hence why it has been the most successful economic system. "hinders humanity to grow beyond basic needs" in literally what way? Under capitalism basic human needs have not only been met but have been FAR FAR SURPASSED. To the point were such over abundance of has become a hindrance, and not to mention all the auxiliary things that have come about due to said system such as vastly improved technology. Not to mention its a luxury that people can have their food made for them when in the past literally everyone had to be farmers just to survive. SO seriously in literally WHAT WAY does capitalism hinder humanities growth? Because to me it seems like it has done EXACTLY the opposite. If you want an example of an economic system "hindering humanities to growth beyond basic needs" I point you to communism and the mass famines it brought about multiple times killing millions of people each time. The previous economic systems that you are referencing like feudalism don't even proportionally compare to capitalism NOR does its contemporaries such as communism or socialisms, both of which have done MUCH more harm despite coming AFTER capitalism, so the idea of newer systems always being better isn't true either.
We aren't seeing capitalism in crysis, that's an over exaggerated. Capitalism as a a system may be undergoing struggles, but not due to any fault of its own. The current problems capitalism is having are the result of other foreign and corrosive economic systems such as socialism interfering with capitalisms normal operations. It's not capitalism or any other economic system that is driving conflict, the blame for that falls squarely on people. Workers have ALWYAS been protesting about working conditions all over the globe and that is never going to change. Its nothing new to current times.
2
-
@alexxx4434 Capital owners? That category encompasses like 99% of people under capitalism. Nearly everyone under capitalism has SOME form of capital under their ownership. So why would capitalism prioritize their freedom? Capitalism offered them the chance to eat responsibly and not get diabetes in the first place, no one force them to get diabetes. Getting treatment for an illness isn't a right, a right is something a person has in a vacuum, without other people to make insulin a person with diabetes would literally just die. Money is power in every economic system as money as a concept PREDATES economic systems, the idea of trading a representative currency in exchange for other items. Money is just the physical representation of human work energy, of course its power, why wouldn't it be? Why shouldn't it be? You think someone who does no work should have as much power as someone who does a lot of work? That doesn't sound fair to me. And yes said money is not distributed evenly since the work people do is not distributed evenly, not to mention how much someone's work is valued is subjective, not something that has a set value. making the system "more fair" just leads to taking things away from those who have actually earned what they have and giving it to people who haven't earned those things but are in worse positions, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" AKA communism.
My beliefs are irrelevant to this and so are yours since statics DO NOT display that the poor are getting poorer. Quality of life has been rising ALL OVER THE WORLD for like 200 years because of capitalism. Just because not EVERYONE in the US has the basic needs met doesn't mean those needs are incapable of being met, it means the person whos needs aren't being met is at fault for not doing what that are suppose to do. Basic needs are not rights, rights are things you have in a vacuum, things that cannot be given or taken away. Without other people to grow the food, build the shelter and provide the safety people would have to obtain those things themselves, thus they are not rights. And trying to instill these things as rights would do nothing for humanities progress. ACTUAL progress requires effort and struggle, not by having what ever you want whenever you want it.
And you are massively misinterpreting the intent of food producers during the great depression. In the first place your assertion that they would destroy resources just so that they could maintain prices makes zero logical or historical sense. Why would they intentionally keep prices high when no one could buy what they were selling anyway, the answer is they couldn't and didn't since the stores that were selling produce ALSO went out of business since no one could buy anything at the time. Secondly, yes, producers have to destroy their crops as if they don't then they wont be able to regrow for the next season and would lose their lively hoods and business and thus they wouldn't be able to grow ANY food for ANYONE. I don't know if you know this but food doesn't just stay there forever, it rots, and when it rots people aren't going to buy it , and since no one had the funds to buy said produce they WERE going to rot. Food doesn't come from nothing, it takes resources and effort to make the amount of food a nation requires and if said resources are going to go to waste because people cant buy the food then there is no point in using said resources. Like seriously your entire argument about capitalism resulting in food destruction because of the great depression gets completely debunked by simply knowing how supply chains work. Or even recognizing the fact that food doesn't stay perpetually fresh ESPECTUALLY during the time of the great depression. Its total historical revisionism.
If you want the problems plaguing the current capitalistic systems to be :fixed" then acknowledge what is ACTUALLY causing the probelms instead of blaming the wrong thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ivarbrouwer197 Literally 99% of abortion cases are not because of rape or incest, why are you trying to make it out that that is even a large percentage ? The child is not the woman's body, it took 2 people to create it, it didn't just appear out of no where, it is its own life, it would become its own life without any intervention from the woman. She was the one who made the choice to partake in an activity that had a risk of her becoming pregnant and the child is not responsible for that, she is and also the male but no one cares what males think when it comes to abortions for some reason even though they are half the reason the child is there in the first place.
I know trump didn't stop it nor did he have to. It's kind of irresponsible to detain minors in the same place you detain adults in the first place. immigrants
Those country's are not the united states, they. Just because they also have a healthcare system doesn't mean we share the same values. Just because their health care is free doesn't make it all around better, the waiting times, the GOVERNMENT deciding what kinds of people are worthy of what kind of treatment, the actual quality of care, all things the united states healthcare system is better at. Hell when people actually have a life threatening condition that can be fixed with things like surgery they actually come to the US to have it done rather than having it done in states that have a free healthcare system. No health care system will ever be perfect but I prefer the one we already have compared to theirs.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenspackman5573 Yes humans are property, whether you think they should be or not. Its been that way since all of human history. People taking claim over each other. MY wife, My family, MY kid, ect ect. This is how relationships work. Not to mention the cases were people were ACTUALLY owning each other via slavery. Which still happens in modern day in first world countries, its called prison. Thus since a child is the parents property, they are held responsible for that property. Otherwise parents wouldn't be held responsible for what their kids do at all. Its like a dog, if your dog bites some one you get fined or even jailed. Since you are the dogs owner. There wasn't a precedent for federally funded public schools before the industrial revolution. It was left up to the parents to teach their kids the vast majority of the time.
"there was far more emphasis... on vocation"
You aren't even disagreeing, you recognized that the point of school was to prepare people for vocation. The basics they would need to operate in those conditions. Basic read writing and math. Stand in a line, do your assignment, stay quite, orderly rows, ect ect. It was for organization sake. Not to raise them as if the teachers were their parents trying to instill moral values.
The wealth I have isnt because of taxes. I still had to pay for everything I have with MY OWN money just like everyone else does ONTOP OF the government stealing my money. Taxes are in no way responsible for that. People have been trading with each other long before taxes were ever a thing. So if my money is going to be FORCEFULLY taken and put somewhere that I have no control over then yes I had better have a say. That's the gist of how the stock market/economy's in general work. You invest in something, thus you have influence over it. You saying that I should be happy that i'm not getting MORE of my money stolen sounds like a weird form of Stockholm's. The benefits you have aren't from government. You dont need experts to teach children. Parents have been doing that just fine for the vast majority of human history. All animals actually. Literally how we all got here. Schools are more so a glorified daycare so the parents can go to work.
What you are referring to Is called a republic. In an true democracy individuals DIRECTLY make decisions on how a society operates. So for people like you who constantly harp on about democracy, going against a more true to form democratic system is odd. And whats more to call it abuse. You see people announcing the grievances and exerting the power they have to make changes as abusive? That sounds much more fascistic. Ironic considering that its at the smaller local level where democracy is most effective. Where everyone can organize and communicate easier. Compared to the larger state/federal level which is mostly where you types seem to advocate for "democracy" the most, in the place were its the least effective.
1
-
@stephenspackman5573 "My: belonging to the speaker"
Pretty clearly a "POSSESSIVE adjective". Similar to most other languages too, not differentiating between owning an item or a person. Even ignoring prisons slavery is still practice in the world in various forms. Because in reality, humans are items just like everything else on the planet is. Hell we've gone as far to say you can OWN an idea. Something intangible. So yes we very much do own each other to varying extents even in the modern world. You don’t have to be to sole proprietor of something to have a stake in it.
Government funded schools were PORTRAYED as a socialist reaction, but in reality industrialism doesn't run itself. It REQUIRES workers and that is what public schools churned out just as intended. It’s literally what one of the founders of public schools said the goal of it was. Most Americans were rural at the time of the industrial revolution, they didn't know how to operate the type of equipment used for industrialization nor did they need to. But then all of a sudden the government promises to teach every ones kids for free? Thus a resulting boom in workers years later. Like seriously which do you think is more realistic? That a group of the worlds most powerful men just up and decided to build schools for all the countries children just out of the goodness of their hearts with no ulterior motives what so ever? You can’t be that naive.
Governments did not make the “vast machinery for society”, individuals did sometimes groups of individuals working together, but not the governments. You are mistakenly conflating society with government. Attributing all power, agency, and advancements to government when in reality, for the vast majority of those processes that led to modern society, government played an EXTREMEMLY small role. In most cases the rest of said society had nothing to do with said developments either. No government has made anything that you own, not a single thing. You’ve fallen for an idealistic world view that sees a government as no different than the people its ruling over. When in reality that’s patently untrue. The very fact that it has power over people to such a degree makes it FUNDAMENTALLY different. Governments are more similar to corporations. Where a corporations nature is to amass currency, a governments nature is to amass control. You cannot think of either corporations or governments as people. Their goals are not aligned with yours or even the people within them. I’d say it’s like being loyal to apple or Microsoft except at least they actually make products, unlike governments. Also, with corporations under capitalism everyone benefits at least somewhat from the economy growing. Government however is a zero sum game, for government to gain control citizens have to lose control. That may be acceptable for people like you, but it’s inherently problematic and tyrannical. It’s that same type of idealistic world view that thinks “if I ruled they world obviously everything would be so much better”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FirstnameLastname-ju7em No matter what the action is any single person can completely stifling this type of moral system by simply not accepting the cost and none of the other people can do anything about it. There's never a guarantee someone is participating in good faith, more often times actually people only abide by things like laws because they get punished for breaking them. Why would someone who doesn't want the cost and not immoral ? Their morals are not worse or better than the other people participating are they? Since everyone's morals are subjective. Manipulation is the default here. In this moral system if someone dos something "immoral" they can simply say its not immoral and no one else could do anything about it.
Trade is what allows for cooperation not morality. Mutual benefit, both parties gaining something independent of morality. Humans didnt develop morality. Secularly speaking the concept of morality isnt a thing in nature. Humans aren't naturally moral, so at minimum morality is a social construct and must be taught.
I may not be able to prove religion but you also cant disprove it. Mean while you also cannot prove that your moral system is objective however I CAN prove that its not objective since you have nothing that can make it so.
The moral decisions made by people based on their religion is from the religion, not their subjective viewpoint. If all people have a say in the moral system that's by definition subjectivity.
What makes it immoral if not all stake holders all receive consideration? Doesnt that sound like circuler logic? Your morality is objective, because it requires consideration of all stake holders, and to not consider all stake holders is immoral, beucase its moral to consider all stake holders, because the morality is objective, because it requires consideration of all stake holders, ect ect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kenny6920 More so than me having faith in some random "good guy with a gun" I have faith in MYSELF. I have faith that I will always have MY best interest in heart more so than anyone else. I also have faith that any other person would also want to protect their own life instead of it being in the hands of some criminal or government. So with that, I want to be able to protect myself in anyway I see fit. Not just from criminals but from my own government if need be. I don't have to trust everyone with a gun because I know at the very least I trust myself.
Not that I believe that the "social structure" always has my best interest at heart ;as it often hasn't for many people according to history; but since you brought it up, why would guns interfere with the social structure more so than anything else? Surly if the social structure was as stable as you seem believe then if anything guns would increase its security as they give people more control over their own lives instead of having it all rest at the head of a single entity that could potentially yield to any number of weaknesses, thus making the entire structure more safe no? This also aids in mitigating the amount of harm that be caused by said entity just incase something did go wrong.
You see I too believe in laws, in as far as they they are generally necessary for society. Not always in their morality and intent but never the less, I also recognize that laws are not absolute. They have no actual power besides the power we all collectively decide to give them. Thus not everyone can/will/ or even should follow laws, and when you base society around the expectation that everyone will follow the law or even that all laws will be objectively moral and worth following you are putting not only your own life at risk but the lives of everyone in said society.
As I said previously we already have limits to freedom in that one persons freedoms end when another persons begins, we don't need more. And yes weapons are entitled to U.S. citizens based on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. Me owning a gun in no way makes my life miserable, quite the opposite in fact it makes me feel safer. So if for some reason me making myself feel safer makes some else feel unsafe that can only mean that said person had intent to do me harm, so they should feel miserable. Obviously people shouldn't just break the law, I never said they should. But people WILL break the law, people DO break the law, and in the cases where they do I want to be in the position to protect myself in the best way I can, as everyone has the right to just in case. Because there will always be bad people in this world, they will use anything from a gun to a knife to a bomb. So in the event ;however unlikely it may be; that I am confronted with a situation that puts my life in danger from people operating outside of the law I want as great of a chance at me protecting myself as possible. IE a fire arm. sorry about such long essays
1
-
@kenny6920 My freedoms in no way conflict with reality. I would imagine the creators of the greatest country in the world would know what they are talking about in regards to what the country should be founded upon. It's fine if you don't trust someone with a gun, but it isn't your right to take someone's gun away because you don't trust them. We already screen first responders, but in regards to non lethal options being given to cops that would not reduce deaths. When a cop is given a taser for example they are more likely to use it on a person compared to a gun leading to more deaths over all compared to if they didn't have a taser. This is why cops now need to have a certain amount of training and experience before even being issued a taser. There are plenty more ways to kill people besides a gun, remember George Floyd? It is literally stated in the second amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" This isn't a matter of interpretation , its very outwardly expressed by the founding fathers that they wanted to arm the populace of the country. If they didn't then why would they even add it. The entire country of America start as a bunch of rebels seceding from an oppressive government, its literally what the country was built on. I never said my goal was to strictly curb gun violence even though it would be desired, and I never said the more guns you have the less gun crime you have. I have attempted however to explain that reducing the amount of guns a countries populace has does not reduce the amount of crime that occurs as I mention with the Australia example. Hell it doesn't even reduce the amount of GUN crime a country has. The U.S. has more guns than any other country but MUCH less gun crime compared to them. Reducing guns wouldn't even slow down gun deaths because as I said, criminals don't obtain their guns legally, so making it harder for legal gun owners to get guns wont reduce the amount of guns criminals have. And like I said before, more crimes are PREVENTED using guns than are committed using guns. A country having more guns does not make it easier for more gun deaths to occur, those 2 variables are simply not correlated. If you want to make people safer that's more of a problem with mental health than it is guns. Not allowing someone to have a gun who hasn't even committed a crime just because they aren't up to some arbitrary standard of mental aptitude is an awful idea. Take the elderly for example? A lot of elderly people are not as mentally capable as most of the general population. Are you seriously going to take away their only means to defend themselves because they're old? Like I said, obviously the amendments have limits, and I described to you exactly where said limits lie. The limit is precisely where you begin to infringe on another persons rights. You can say whatever you want to me all I have to do is walk away, however if you start following me around that's stalking which a crime. Just like I can't point my gun at you wildly or threaten you with it. That's called brandishing and it is also illegal. That is the equivalent of your example of the 1st amendments limitations, basically not pointing the gun at people. A more apt equivalent of taking away an innocent persons right to defend themselves would be if you made it illegal to say certain words. As I sure hope you can imagine that would be horrible. The United states military is realistically incapable of stealing this country from it's citizens. The US military couldn't even take Afghanistan from a bunch of mountain bandits after 2 DECADES. They couldn't even take Vietnam. And we have a much larger population and more weapons than both those country's combined. Not to mention that OUR military is currently based out OUR country. We own this country not the government. If we wanted to take this country from the military it would be an inevitability. Apart from commiting actual genocide against the country's populace the United States military has absolutely no chance at defeating the population of the USA. How would it serve the people to give the state MORE power? If anything we should actively be trying to take power AWAY from the government, they already have too much. Governments don't exactly have the greatest track record. Hell it wouldn't be the first time in history a countries government betrayed its own people. No one is breaking any laws by simply preparing for the unlikely event that the united states government does for some reason turn on the people its meant to serve. Preparing for a fight isn't the same as taking action. It is literally just standing by and it would be rather foolish for people to not at least prepare for such a scenario given that it as it has happened so many times in the past already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solaris7308 Its not relativism or nihilistic. Its a factual statement about reality. Any thing truly can be considered art, thats a problem with art and always had been, its either all or nothing. But the vast majority dont care about art out side of its end result. They dont care about the skill, or the time, or the effort, just the end result, how it looks. Everything is materialistic, otherwise nothing would be worth anything. And with that there is going to come pretention in really all aspects not just art. Its humans nature, everyone thinks they know better than everyone else. Not to mention how you cant objectively measure something like art without simply going off of the end result, effort doesn't give it value, skill doesnt give it value, time doesnt give it value so you must go off of the end result if you are attempting to measure it "objectively".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@respondsliterallytothings9843 Sure there are commercials telling women to be pretty, but none telling them that they have issues that are based on just being a woman. Cat calling isn't sexist, and a business man talking about his employee and touching them on the shoulder isn't sexist either, people make others feel uncomfortable all the time, its how the world is, people who cant handle being in slightly uncomfortable situations are just spoiled, there are still things we do today, that we did that will never go away and fighting is one of those things, especially for young boys, rough housing is one of those innocent things they do , people just wanna turn naturally rambunctious boys into delicate obedient calm literally girls, or at least as close as you can get to them, when boys and girls are just fundamentally different. Because masculinity is "toxic", but apparently nothing about femininity 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
-
@uru-annapace No no, what your doing isn't simply acknowledging that genes play a role in performance, what your doing is saying that genes are the MAIN thing that gauge performance, as the term "freak show" implies. Which like I said is not only untrue but disparaging to those who work hard their entire live without said special genes. The people that do this usually are just trying to downplay the accomplishments of athletes in an attempt to make them feel better about themselves which I find repulsive. I never denied genes played a role, I just don't think they play the most important role when it comes to a persons performance at the Olympics or sports, which is what "freak show" implies. You cant disrespect science, its not a person, its not something created by a single person, its just a way of measuring a world, a tool, not some ideology. Saying you can disrespect science would be like saying measuring something with your eyes is disrespectful to a ruler...
And again, your complaining to me about something I didn't start. I wasn't the one who introduced the example of a fictional character. But even if I WAS the one who Began using a fictional character as an example, FUCKING SO WHAT? You do realize humans have been doing that for millennia right? Using fictional examples and peoples to be able to convey their point in a way that is easier to understand? Like seriously what is your problem with that? Do you not like hypotheticals at all? If so you must HATE math because it is FULLY of hypotheticals, science as well. I'm starting to suspect that you honestly just feel compelled to constantly over complicate topics as a form of gate keeping so that you feel superior for understanding a "complex" topic. However this kind of intellectual gate keeping isn't an indication of intelligence, quite the opposite actually. Even an idiot ;especially idiots; can make a topic more complicated than it is or needs to be. Its often those who are well versed in the subject matter that can simplify a complex topic into something that even an idiot can understand. That's what metaphors are for and I seriously cannot understand your aversion to them to this extent other than the aforementioned gate keeping theory.
And even when I was referring to the bruce wayne example it had NOTHING to do with genes, it was completely about how a person circumstances effect their abilities and who they become.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devilofether6185 Yes it is indeed your fault, you directly contributed to it like every other person in America who has a phone and you KNEW how the phone was made so you have no excuse as to why you bought it when you could have not bought if you really cared about alleviating suffering abroad. You try to make it sound like the phone is nessecary for you to live when its not, making excuses as to why you need it?
And yes, the risk are socialized because its all of society that engages with the product that the individual is rewarded for. Us you want to susggest that only 1 person each should be able to buy anything from anyone else. Everyone profits from sweat shops even people like you that profit by having less expensive items that you get from said sweat shops. The market itself not caring about humans rights is irrelevant, thats not the markets job its an inanimate object. Thats the job of the people within the market, the market is just a reflection of humans. No one is forcing anyone to work in first world countries, if you dont want to be apart of the market you can very easily just leave it and become a hermit in the woods somewhere and live off the land, but you don't want to do that because you like having what the market ALLOWS to exist the, conviences it affords. So yes you are just as responsible.
Most billionaires got their wealth on their own, or if you want to downplay their accomplishments they simply got lucky. The elon musk emerald mine myth has been debunk already btw. You dont have to invent something to be the thing that revolutionizes it in a field, Thomas Edison didnt invent the entire light bulb he only invented a part of it but the part he did invent was one of the most substantial developments TO the lightbulb thus why he gets the credit.
People didn't vote on lots of things in the constitution because they were never suppose to, the US isnt a total democracy, far from it, its a constitutional republic, even more it has the electoral college. And yes there is a reason prisoners get their rights taken away, because they infringed on the rights of others. Not hard to understand and its a good thing they get their rights taken away for not respecting the rights of others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1