Youtube comments of Clown Life (@Clownlife432).

  1. 4000
  2. 2800
  3. 2000
  4. 2000
  5. 1200
  6. 1100
  7. 706
  8. 549
  9. 502
  10. 364
  11. 314
  12. 299
  13. 299
  14. 296
  15. 293
  16. 288
  17. 279
  18. 275
  19. 252
  20. 217
  21. 215
  22. 214
  23. 195
  24. 190
  25. 157
  26. 151
  27. 151
  28. 151
  29. 145
  30. 141
  31. 141
  32. 141
  33. 139
  34. 135
  35. 135
  36. 133
  37. 130
  38. 128
  39. 125
  40. 113
  41. 107
  42. 105
  43. 94
  44. 91
  45. 89
  46. 85
  47. 83
  48. 83
  49. 83
  50. 83
  51. 79
  52. 77
  53. 75
  54. 75
  55. 73
  56. 72
  57. 72
  58. 68
  59. 65
  60. 61
  61. 61
  62. 61
  63. 60
  64. 59
  65. 58
  66. 58
  67. 57
  68. 56
  69. 55
  70. 55
  71. 55
  72. 54
  73. 54
  74. 53
  75. 53
  76. 52
  77. 51
  78. 50
  79. 50
  80. 49
  81. 46
  82. 45
  83. 43
  84. 42
  85. 42
  86. 41
  87. 40
  88. 40
  89. 40
  90. 40
  91. 39
  92. 39
  93. 38
  94. 37
  95. 37
  96. 37
  97. 37
  98. 36
  99. 36
  100. 35
  101. 35
  102. 34
  103. 34
  104. 33
  105. 32
  106. 32
  107. 32
  108. 32
  109. 32
  110. 32
  111. 31
  112. 31
  113. 31
  114. 31
  115. 31
  116. 31
  117. 29
  118. 29
  119. 29
  120. 27
  121. 27
  122. 26
  123. 25
  124. 25
  125. 25
  126. 24
  127. 23
  128. 23
  129. 23
  130. 22
  131. 22
  132. 22
  133. 22
  134. 22
  135. 22
  136. 21
  137. 21
  138. 21
  139. 21
  140. 20
  141. 20
  142. 20
  143. 20
  144. 20
  145. 20
  146. 20
  147. 20
  148. 19
  149. 19
  150. 19
  151. 19
  152. 19
  153. 18
  154. 18
  155. 18
  156. 18
  157. 18
  158. 17
  159. 17
  160. 17
  161. 17
  162. 17
  163. 17
  164. 17
  165. 17
  166. 17
  167. 16
  168. 16
  169. 16
  170. 15
  171. 15
  172. 15
  173. 15
  174. 15
  175. 15
  176. 15
  177. 15
  178. 15
  179. 14
  180. 14
  181. 14
  182. 14
  183. 14
  184. 13
  185. 13
  186. 13
  187. 13
  188. 13
  189. 13
  190. 12
  191. 12
  192. 12
  193. 12
  194. 12
  195. 12
  196. 12
  197. 12
  198. 12
  199. 12
  200. 11
  201. 11
  202. 11
  203. 11
  204. 11
  205. 11
  206. 11
  207. 11
  208. 11
  209. 11
  210. 11
  211. 11
  212. 11
  213. 11
  214. 11
  215. 11
  216. 10
  217. 10
  218. 10
  219. 10
  220. 10
  221. 10
  222. 10
  223. 10
  224. 10
  225. 10
  226. 10
  227. 10
  228. 10
  229. 9
  230. 9
  231. 9
  232. 9
  233. 9
  234. 9
  235. 9
  236. 9
  237. 9
  238. 9
  239. 9
  240. 9
  241. 9
  242. 9
  243. 9
  244. 9
  245. 9
  246. 9
  247. 9
  248. 9
  249. 9
  250. 9
  251. 8
  252. 8
  253. 8
  254. 8
  255. 8
  256. 8
  257. 8
  258. 8
  259. 8
  260. 8
  261. 8
  262. 8
  263. 8
  264. 8
  265. 8
  266. 8
  267. 8
  268. 8
  269. 7
  270. 7
  271. 7
  272. 7
  273. 7
  274. 7
  275. 7
  276. 7
  277. 7
  278. 7
  279. 7
  280. 7
  281. 7
  282. 7
  283. 7
  284. 7
  285. 7
  286. 7
  287. 7
  288. 7
  289. 7
  290. 7
  291. 7
  292. 7
  293. 7
  294. 7
  295. 7
  296. 7
  297. 7
  298. 7
  299. 7
  300. 6
  301. 6
  302. 6
  303. 6
  304. 6
  305. 6
  306. 6
  307. 6
  308. 6
  309. 6
  310. 6
  311. 6
  312. 6
  313. 6
  314. 6
  315. 6
  316. 6
  317. 6
  318. 6
  319. 6
  320. 6
  321. 6
  322. 6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. 6
  328. 6
  329. 6
  330. 6
  331. 6
  332. 6
  333. 6
  334. 6
  335. 6
  336. 6
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339. 5
  340. 5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344. 5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. 5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 5
  361. 5
  362. 5
  363. 5
  364. 5
  365. 5
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373. 5
  374. 5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377. 5
  378. 5
  379. 5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. 5
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 5
  387. 5
  388. 5
  389. 5
  390. 5
  391. 5
  392. 4
  393. 4
  394. 4
  395. 4
  396. 4
  397. 4
  398. 4
  399. 4
  400. 4
  401. 4
  402. 4
  403. 4
  404. 4
  405. 4
  406. 4
  407. 4
  408. 4
  409. 4
  410. 4
  411. 4
  412. 4
  413. 4
  414. 4
  415. 4
  416. 4
  417. 4
  418. 4
  419. 4
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422.  @charlesking3384  Do you really think name calling helps, or convinces anyone of anything. If you want to convince people, I’d recommend making an argument on the merits. let’s go point by point. Let’s first address bully cops and you. I don’t know anything about your situation, so I have no comment. Apologies if that happened to you. Second, I have been mistreated by police, including having one pull a gun on me when he was trespassing on private property. That being said, I judge police the same way I judge people, as individuals. This individual was not allowed to be in that gym. The officer had clearly told him that he was already trespassed for a year. What does this mean? It means that the owners, or people in charge of the facility said you are not allowed to be here on this property. I do not know why he was trespassed before, but I’m doubtful he was just playing basketball. Usually, when I see people be trespassed and barred from courts it’s either for assault and or battery. That’s being said, what he did prior is irrelevant. The fact he was trespassed means he can not be on that property. If I come to your place of business, and cause a fuss, and you get me trespassed for the next year, I am not entitled to go back to your business tomorrow. It seems from the video that this was on a college campus recreation court. If he disagrees with the year suspension fro maybe premises, he is free to challenge that through the administration, and through the law. He is not permitted to just do what he wants and come back. The cops were doing their job, and did a good job. They offered him the opportunity to leave, he declined. They detained him, and during the process he bucked up and swung and elbow, and then threatened them. They were right to arrest him, and it’s good they did. He should face criminal penalties for threatening officers. The officers bullied no one. Someone called them there. Someone in charge of the gym that said he can’t be here. That’s called trespassing. So how exactly is this bullying? He had the option to leave, he choose to force the escalation. You are allowing your personal experience to blind you from the facts in regards to this matter. So, am I an idiot? I don’t think so, I evaluated the event in its context, and I didn’t allow any personal mistreatment of myself to bias my evaluation. How specifically was he bullied when he was already barred from being there? Do you know why he was barred in the past? Do you think the police just were following him, or do you think they were called? By who? Why? Please, answer those. No need to name call, it only makes you look foolish, and unsure of your position. If you know you’re right, argue on the points. You’re up.
    4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. 4
  428. 4
  429. 4
  430. 4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. 4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437. 4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 4
  447. 4
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 3
  461. 3
  462. 3
  463. 3
  464. 3
  465. 3
  466. 3
  467. 3
  468. 3
  469. 3
  470. 3
  471. 3
  472. 3
  473. 3
  474. 3
  475. 3
  476. 3
  477. 3
  478. 3
  479. 3
  480. 3
  481. 3
  482. 3
  483. 3
  484. 3
  485. 3
  486. 3
  487. 3
  488. 3
  489. 3
  490. 3
  491. 3
  492. 3
  493. 3
  494. 3
  495. 3
  496. 3
  497. 3
  498. 3
  499. 3
  500. 3
  501. 3
  502. 3
  503. 3
  504. 3
  505. 3
  506. 3
  507. 3
  508. 3
  509. 3
  510. 3
  511. 3
  512. 3
  513. 3
  514. 3
  515. 3
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519. 3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579. If you watched Matt Walsh’s comments about video games, you would see he is 100% on target. He said they are fine in moderation, but with children, volume, and the level of graphic content matters. There is nothing wrong in that statement. Video games and violent content in general do desensitize us to violence. Does that mean everyone becomes a school shooter? No, of course not. But is it good. It’s probably not great, but can be enjoyed in moderation. Considering 2/3 people in this country are overweight or obese, the volume component is an even broader issue. Kids miss nothing by not playing video games. But they potentially pay a lot of costs. You can’t buy your health back once it’s gone. You also can’t buy back your mental health when you can’t function or sit in a sit without a virtual pacifier. Do you think that there is a link between the number of young kids getting diagnosed with adhd and the fact that they get put on screens like pacifiers. Further, more adults are having cognitive issues. I suspect in the future they will discover that the overuse of screen based entertainment is melting peoples brains. Tik tok is the final example of that. Books to documentaries, to YouTube videos, to 10 second flashes. We’ve become monkeys pulling levers for pellets. Games do have some pros. You can develop skill set development for handling external items by remote control, some of the story lines are good, you can bond with friends. But Matt’s argument holds, gratuitous amounts of violence for young kids viewing isn’t good, and a high volume also not good. Wasted video Jeremy. Now comment on something I want to hear you talk about. I want to hear you talk about Steven Crowders leaked footage of how he treats his wife. You already waded into this one. Finish the job, don’t be squimish now that Steven is seen in a bad light.
    2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608. 2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 2
  617. 2
  618. 2
  619. 2
  620. 2
  621. 2
  622. 2
  623. 2
  624. 2
  625. 2
  626. 2
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656. 2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. 2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 2
  686. 2
  687. 2
  688. 2
  689. 2
  690. 2
  691. 2
  692. 2
  693. 2
  694. 2
  695. 2
  696. 2
  697. 2
  698. 2
  699. 2
  700. 2
  701. 2
  702. 2
  703. 2
  704. 2
  705. 2
  706. 2
  707. 2
  708. 2
  709. 2
  710. 2
  711. 2
  712. 2
  713. 2
  714. 2
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754.  @cmack17  I would not say I’m the final arbiter, but would say I understand in broad terms what is broadly accepted and believed amongst conservatives from having read the works of their main intellectuals. I did directly answer the question. The public is allowed equal use, that use can be defined by the government. The government is different then us, just like police are different then us. They are not merely citizens. They are citizens that we give special powers to that you and I don’t have to exert extra control over our lives. Keep government small. A government based on negative rights is inherently smaller then alternatives. Because negative rights are things that can not be taken from you. Where as positive rights are things the government has to give you, which requires a large government to do. You can not have welfare without people to distribute it. This needs funds, so then you must tax, which needs agents. The more things you “give” away, the more you require a larger government. Small, ideally would involve only basic services to protect negative rights. Small in the sense, that if San Diego has a homeless problem, they don’t reach out to the federal level, they tax their own citizens to handle their own issue. They are closest to the problem, and know what needs done better then anyone in Washington. Also, as you reach to the federal level, rounding “errors” become bigger by politicians, and they tend not to solve the problem. I’m fact, and I’m sure you’ve had experience with this, they often exacerbate a problem. They leave you scratching your head, and wondering why would anyone do it that way, that would never work. It’s because they are too far from the issue to provide a reasonable solution. All they can do is waste your money in a dog and pony show of support to try to get re-elected. If San Diego wants to clean it up, it’s easy. No camping on sidewalks. You have the option to move it along or seek counseling and help. If yo want to do drugs in public, and cause crime, you can go to jail. It works very well, I have lived in 14 different states, multiple areas in those, rural and city. The places that thrive the best in regards to this issue make that clear, and it works. Turns out people don’t want to be in jail for being addicts, and they often choose treatment at that point. If the federal government does have any role here, it’s to lock down the border from drugs traffic. I propose executing drug traffickers. You’re not a citizen, and choose to assist in poisoning are citizens, and causing decay in our cities. Well, you forfeit your life. This will dramatically lower the smuggling because it changes the incentive structure dramatically. Which what you do to when you tell addicts, treatment or jail. These policies of open air drug markets don’t work. I had a business in LA, formerly lived in SD for 7 years as well. The addicts and crime they brought around, I just up moved. You’ll see that more and more if things don’t change. Good citizens leave, and you’ll be left with addicts, petty criminals, gang activity, antifa, and poorly functioning governments, and local economies.
    2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. Always a great idea to vilify everyone from a certain a group without knowing anything about them. Think, what’s the likelihood a former cop who watches this channel, and seconds what this lawyer says was a bad guy. The answer is it is statistically not 0 but they are much lower then the average. Someone who watches content like this probably cares about citizen rights. They are part of a small demographic of the overall population that self selected into this content. We like to call this survivorship bias. Knowing this we can infer this man likely cares about individual rights, and he didn’t push back against this lawyer, he said he’s right. Further, I love everyone demanding him to explain his record. You know what that sounds like, those tyrant cops you hate. I have known great cops that have taken bullets for people before, I have known bad ones. I even had one pull a gun on me because he was embarrassed he got caught trespassing. That being said, you want the profession of policing to improve, becuase you’re going to have cops. The only question is will they become better to truly protect and serve, be demilitarized, and respect individuals rights or will they trend further into the direction of tyrants. If you vilify everyone, you’ll drive away anyone hood who is or wants to be a cop. The people that arrest abusers of women and children, murderers, rapists, and other horrific crimes. If you want things to be better, instead of constantly going on the attack, start a dialogue. What would you change about modern day policing in policy or law? Be precise, and treat it as triage addressing the most important issues first. Then derive how you can get those things to change. But just verbally attacking people you don’t know makes you no better then the bad cops you hate. Isn’t it funny how people consumed by hate often mirror the thing they claim to hate or stand against most?
    2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789.  @dmeauxoxo  I said low likelihood of warrants. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. We would know if she had warrants, becuase the video would have added that after the fact. Again, ask yourself, do you think someone arguing over a 49 cent piece of cheese would stay to speak with the police is they had a warrant? Not impossible, but unlikely. Most people don’t have warrants, so unlikely in general. He should have told her to leave or be cited. It wasn’t that big of deal, and the officer escalated to a point it didn’t need to go. Do I think she should have just given her name, yes. But the reality is, the officer is the professional in this situation, and he should have weighed the risk vs reward instead of acting like a robot. He brought the temperature of that interaction up with his attitude as well. He could have simply said leave, or you can’t leave until you give ID. At no point did he need to have an attitude and get into a verbal match with a citizen. Instead of what he did do which was get dragged into a childish argument that lead to him punching her. She was being ridiculous, but he should do what an adult does with a kid, say she can’t leave, allow to verbally exhaust herself, then politely ask for her ID again. That would be how to hedge your beats to diffuse the situation if you wanted the ID. But in reality, telling her to leave would have been simple, and easy. His pride got hurt, so he overreacted. This was a prelude to how he would act later, his pride got hurt when he couldn’t handle her, and instead of get control of the situation, he punched her repeatedly. Cops do not need to ID every person they come across, it causes undue friction in the communities they operate. If she was stopped in a traffic incident or for a more serious offense for not showing ID, that would be a different story. But a minor infraction over a hamburger, over what could be argued in court whether it was trespassing was not worth the officers time. With limited resources he should move on and focus on more worth while activists. Further, he would have built a huge rapport if he had conversation with the women about why she wouldn’t show ID, and given her the option to leave. Instead, he made her feel like a trapped animal over a bad customer/employee experience. She was wrong in how she acted. He was also wrong in how he acted, and given the context that he is the professional at work, I expect better.
    2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912.  @VocalMabiMaple  models. Models that don’t track how people react, that’s the first error. Every time someone has a tax plan they say all the money it will generate. People are not pieces on a chessboard, they react. If you made property tax the only tax rich people would find a way to largely side step it or you would even potentially see a brain drain with people of resources taking their wealth and skills elsewhere. That’s the first error in this chain. Second, most models are flawed and they only understand it once the rubber meets the road since reality is generally more complex. Third, most modeling is done on a slant with a desired outcome. I don’t respect most models. I would have to know what institutions did the modeling, the people who worked on the project, and any conflicts of interest. Some modeling is well meaning, but most of it is a joke. Fourth, and most importantly, property tax and taxes largely are immoral. The state is deciding what you can keep of wealth that you created. How is that reasonable? How do they do that, well group people by raw majority pick someone to decide what they can take from you. If you don’t agree they send men with guns to your house to arrest you. This is no different than answering to a mob. A group of individuals can abuse a persons rights just as much as any one individual can, and just because you vote on it doesn’t make it moral. I would suggest instead of reading about models you firmly evaluate if you think it’s ok for a mob of people to decide that someone has to transfer them wealth. I mean that whole heartedly as well. I think what you’ll find is that largely in the west for at least the past 100 years we’re taught to believe that taxing people is morally fine. Examine it closely, you already know the for case, look at the against case. It’s a clear case of people’s natural rights being violated.
    2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. @ and those that want to take part in that will gladly pitch their support behind such a thing. The assumption you make is that common law has yet to be finished being fleshed out. Further, common law is downstream of natural law. Natural law is largely what anyone needs for a flourishing society. You don’t have the right to to use violence except to use violence being brought against you, including by the state. You don’t have the right to another person, and obviously by extension their property without their permission. These are largely the two rules needed. Further, a decreased state will allow those to put themselves under the laws of their choosing. Peoples who want to band together will, by choice, and people that don’t will form their own communities, like the Amish. The Amish don’t require their people stay, yet about 80% return from rumsrpinger. Further, they still trade with those they don’t agree with on their way of life. What you’d find if you allow people to live under the rules of their choosing is you would have much less strife because people wouldn’t elect one party to rule the other half of the country. You want to join a group that has universal healthcare you need to pay into, sure, you can do that. Somewhere else wants to have no universal pot for healthcare, also fine. You need consent still. Further, you assume that the pull back in government won’t provide us with more diverse options and many better options than our current legal system. Good news there too, you’ll have the option to consent to those as well. Your claim proves too much, I suggest you reevaluate.
    1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. Tim brought this on himself. First, he tried to obfuscate responsibility about the story becuase you weren’t there. Second, he had her on twice, lending her credibility. It was duty, as someone trying to propagate truth to address the issue. He could have merely said, controversial things are happening now with a figure who was on the show, and I currently do not know what is real. But we will have people look into it. Then come back after a period of time, with whatever you find, even if it’s nothing. But you can not call yourself a seeker of truth, and then run away with after someone you lended a platform to is involved in a scandal. That’s why people are upset with him. It’s almost like he thought to admit he was fooled by her, would make him a total failure. I don’t think that was the case, but why not just address it. He went off the edge. It kind of seems like he has such a large platform now, that he doesn’t think he should address his audience anymore, which from my understanding is the point of super chats. I think if your audience is ants to see something about a guest you had on, you should address it. He acted like he had no idea who she was, and that she was only relevant because people in the chat were talking about it. That’s a total distortion of facts. The reason she was relevant to people in his chats is because she was on his show. The whole thing turned me off from him. Not being able to admit you were wrong, and address an issue is a huge character flaw.
    1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649.  @MohamedRamadan-qi4hl  again, I would not judge them by todays standard. That’s what I’m talking about. Just like I wouldn’t judge the Middle Ages against our standard. I’m talking about that man is an animal, and emerged from other species. Our species was born in ignorance and squaller. We went from Stone Age tools to what we are now. We went from things like rape, conquest, genocide, slavery, being just business of the day to frowned upon, and or eventually outlawed. It’s easy to judge a society that lived thousands of years ago with your views and knowledge. These people were some of the first societies emerging from total ignorance. They also had to contend with outside invaders such as Persians and Macedonians. It was time where if you were weak, you could be completely destroyed. There would be no UN, no bigger nations funding a proxy war, no other governments with refugee programs. In that context, it would be understandable to see why people were brutal. It was a dog eat dog world. It’s also understandable that people just grow up and get their societies and cultures programming. Not thinking our questioning much beyond that. This is especially true when you’re worried about surviving. In addition to external enemies, they had to worry about disease, famine, and natural disasters to higher extent then us. Early societies were far from perfect. They were in their infancy. I do not consider their slave population as part of their citizenry. These were people that were man power for them. It’s understandable that in dog eat dog world, a people would choose to try and be the biggest dog. So I am not worried about judging them by societies standards. I’m happy for the contributions they made to western society. Especially militarily, and through defenses they made against incursions from other countries. They laid the ground work that allowed themselves and others to focus on building the concept of democracy and republics. When they were bundled together in city states as country with Athens, the supposedly enlightened. Don’t think for a moment that Athens didn’t want to team up with them because they thought they had no value. No, they saw the value of being apart of conglomerate that had a city state with an elite standing army. That’s how I look at it. You bring up how slaves revolted. Of course, slaves don’t want to be slaves. They had many, if you have a group of people you control that outnumbers you in huge amounts, that risk is high. Where did slaves not exist in the ancient world? In ancient times everyone was as fine with the concept of slavery, they just didn’t want to be one. In fact, you can still see this viewpoint is held in much of the world. Places like Mauritania still have open slavery. Many countries in the Middle East take foreign workers passports in trap them in slave like conditions. China has a whole minority group in concentration camps, harvesting organs, using them for labor, sterilizing them. So in modernity, western views are still not universal. If that’s the case, why would you think you could judge a group of people from 3,000 years ago by todays standard. You can’t.
    1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820.  @cmack17  1. I do not know what question you speak of. Please be clear. 2. We can have a discussion about drug legality in relation to externalities not being imposed on others. When you fill the sidewalk with excrement, and cause crime, you are cussing externalities. If someone wants to use drugs in the privacy of their home, we can discuss the limitations of that. Libertarians would argue for no laws. That’s just anarchy. They would argue for the use of drugs that do not hurt others, and setting up your tent, and committing crimes is hurting the community. But yes, libertarians would not fully be against drug use, but context dependent. 3. The second sentence is not written in a way that makes sense to me, please provide clarity. The first sentence, drug dealers should be punished here as well. But you better believe that all this originates with cartels bringing it over the border, and those people should be killed. Again, it creates the appropriate incentive structure. Drug dealers need to serve long terms here, they shouldn’t be allowed to plea down to possession. I would not argue for the legalization of all drugs. Drugs like meth only have one ending. Recreational substances can be discussed about trade offs, and incentive structures they create. But I think you’re confusing libertarian with anarchism. 4. I would agree the people are lazy. I never said they weren’t. I heard before a phrase I liked. It said that we hate politicians so much because we see ourselves. We get who we get, because that’s how much the the average person pays attention to what’s happening around them, that’s how much the average person understands about our republic. So I don’t know what point you’re making, other then most people are fools, and I would never argue against that. In fact, since most people are fools, the people we give special powers over us, the government, they should be hemmed in to an extreme.
    1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898.  @bodyrumuae2914  the war crime thing isn’t on another level. If you care to read up about it please check out David Grossmans book On Killing. He was a Ranger, a West Point professor, and a psychologist and studied how military’s get people to kill. Part of his research was around war crimes, and it’s the exact t same thing you see here. The responsibility is obfuscated through the order mechanism. The person ordering says I didn’t pull the trigger, and the person pulling the trigger says I was ordered to do it. This obfuscates the responsibility and as a secondary aspect binds them together in an alliance, because they must now cover for each other. This is exactly the same, the only difference is that it was done by this man’s own government vs a foreign state. When you watch the video the police chief repeatedly says don’t worry I ordered you to. I guarantee if he was charged all of a sudden it would be I would expect him to use personal judgment of course. Another great book on the topic is Hannah Arendts Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. In it she discusses that most people aren’t monsters and to do these things you need to understand that most people will stick with societal norms and expectations, follow rules, follow orders, and do their jobs. The end conclusion is that most evil perpetrated is done by regular people like that second cop. The difference between this and a war crime is only different in magnitude. Another great book is where police are used for the killings is ordinary men. All of it comes from the same place, which is when one hasn’t developed their morality and ethics they will do whatever they are told. So I see no difference in these. This second cop was the same type of person that would load someone into a train cart or shot someone into a mass grave. Mass killing events after all are just a bunch of single events put together.
    1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958.  @uis246  no, not always. This what people talk about usually when they say the deep state or bureaucratic state. It’s a lot of unelected people making rules, and they are not accountable. It tracks back to Supreme Court decisions, mainly chevron deference. But it’s terrible law because it basically tells the agencies you decide, but that then makes the rule makers unaccountable to the public. This is the same problem a lot of 2A people have with the ATF, as they routinely ‘interpret’ new things as being illegal, and just like that, you’re a criminal. That’s why chevron deference needs to be struck down. Laws are passed by lawmakers, and judges should enforce said laws, and the Supreme Court should determine if those laws are in alignment with the constitution. Any agency that does exist, and I don’t think many are needed, but any that does should be advisory only. But this causes an underlying natural friction. People want power, people want to be perceived as important. Companies want market share to look important. Government agencies want a large size and scope to look important. But coming back to your original question, often times these individual questions have to go up to the Supreme Court, similar to gun laws. Often times, politicians know those laws will be deemed unconstitutional. But they do it anyways to pander, and to attempt at grabbing power. Great example, student loan forgiveness, the president knew he had no power to do that. But he did get to pander for the midterm last year, and he will use it as political fodder because of the perception of the court because they’re primarily originalists this point.
    1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000.  @delmanglar  I find that unlikely. What I find more likely is that they are potentially ratcheting up the tension for little to no gain. It would be easy to say, leave, don’t come back. This woman clearly didn’t have warrants out, or they would have told us. There is no reason to escalate a low level issue to something of this extent. This is just an issue about trade offs. Is what you are saying a possibility, unlikely, but possible. What I am saying is much more likely to happen. It also keeps the cops from taking a position about who was right or wrong, when they weren’t there, and didn’t see what happened. Writing someone a citation when the citizen perceives the other side, the restaurant employees, as getting off will innately make the other person feel like they are getting taken advantage by the employees through the use of law enforcement. That may or may not have been the case. But if you’re a cop, you’re best bet is listen to both sides, and appear neutral barring overwhelming evidence. In something minor like this, listen to both sides, then tell the person to kick rocks, and tell the employees to not treat people inappropriately if they did. Because either way you will notice a trend. Either a trend of this person seeking out confrontation, or an issue with that McDonald’s causing confrontation with customers. They did not need to ratchet this up. Also, someone with warrants, very unlikely to hang around and wait for cops to show up to handle there 49 cent burger dispute.
    1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225.  @KilgorSoS 😆 you didn’t read what I said. Instead of reacting, read, and process. First, I never said he there was no ability to search due to smell. I said, quite clearly, do not consent to searches as a citizen. If a search was to be thrown out in the future on whatever pretext the officer used, they would revert to saying but he consented. So it is always wise to never consent to a search. Does this make sense. Further, you should not get arrested for having a gun. I do not care what law they pass, the second amendment supersedes those laws. Knowing the law also means understanding the process, and that means understanding that politicians routinely pass unconstitutional laws that get struck down by the Supreme Court. I think this is one that might go. I as a staunch supporter of the second amendment do not believe that anyone should be arrested ever for merely possessing a firearm. Knowing the law, as you say, means knowing that the second amendment says not to be infringed, and there is a strong case to say you’re infringing on someone’s rights because they are being arrested for having a gun, and it also comes into conflict potentially with the fifth amendment as well. Does that clear things up? An analogy to help, Michigan just passed a law compelling people to use the “correct” pronouns with people. “Knowing the law”, as you would say, I know that will be ruled unconstitutional in alignment with the second amendment. So if you go back and read what I wrote, I never said some politician didn’t put words to paper saying such nonsense. I said a gun is not a crime. Just like I think speech is not a crime. Those statements are full stop. They should be for yo has well if you are a second amendment supporter. You can attack people, you can call names, but that doesn’t make you right. I would suggest a deep dive into the constitution, followed by the federalist papers, followed by what is typical legal advice when dealing with police. Here’s a great place to start. You go ahead and have a great day, chief. https://constitutioncenter.org/
    1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. Fun facts: - most crime is intra racial. That means same race on same race. - Most murderers have on average in the DC area have over 12 convictions. It may vary some, but I’m sure it’s similar enough that you get the point. - gang violence largely arose in minority neighborhoods because they were under policed because of racist reasons in the past. - poor areas exist without large crime. Poverty itself does not cause crime. Please see Thomas Sowell for details. However, crime causes poverty, as no businesses want to make investments in communities that have poor rule of law. What can we gather from this? - this young woman is another victim of black on black crime. This will not be in the mainstream national media because it is inconvenient to the narrative being pushed. - we will likely find that the criminal had a record a mile long, but DAs elected by the community have enacted soft on crime policies allowing them to walk to commit the murder. - after defunding the police, tying their hands to do their job, and vilifying them, you have seen policing pulled back in minority neighborhoods leading to more murder. Like before, but this time the city asked for it. - as crime goes up, both property and murder, and as law breakers are not punished, businesses close and leave. Many stores recently have shuttered their doors and left the city, especially in the high crime and theft areas. This creates the food deserts, poverty, lack of opportunity constantly complained about. A shame to see, but remember the chant, ACAB. Is that’s true, what are you all mourning?
    1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611.  @chevyjay399  thanks for identifying yourself as the village idiot. 1) that’s not what i said. 2) there is a benefit to the American citizen that they know what other nations, including ‘enemy’ nations. The only way to not agree with this is to say that you 100% trust our government. I don’t know about you, but that’s a wild position to take. Would more foreign propaganda come in, yes. In turn for us to believe our government we would have to look at and evaluate both. This in turn creates the incentive for your government to lie less, not be honest, lie less. No large government ever tells its people the truth. But if they have to be a bit more honest with us that benefits us in many ways. First, it instills better moral incentives, moving people closer to the good. Second, it helps us avoid loss of life, money, and government laundering schemes. Think, in WW1 both sides stopped fighting on Christmas. They came out of the trenches played games, exchanged food and drink, sang, partied. Some areas had to be ordered back to start the killing again. How do you get people to do that? I’d venture it largely involves one sided propaganda on both sides. I have no reason to hate a Russian for being born in certain geography, and he has no quarrel with me. If you want this country to avoid wars and focus on itself it’s always best to not allow one government to control the narrative. Key phrase in the last sentence, government, not its people. 3) another example that probably hits close home for you. They took trumps social media presence away and accused him of insurrection after he told people to protest peacefully, but they took down the video on major social media so the general public had to hunt it down. If the government will lie to your face about your own country, your own leaders, and you own language, what would cause them not to lie about a country you know almost nothing about, and don’t know their language, and have their media blocked. I think that kind environment is ripe for false propaganda. So you’ve been nuked for your stupid “go back to Russia comment”, but it was all in good faith, and you got to learn something. You’re welcome.
    1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1