Youtube comments of Clown Life (@Clownlife432).
-
4000
-
2800
-
2000
-
2000
-
1200
-
1100
-
706
-
549
-
502
-
364
-
314
-
299
-
299
-
296
-
293
-
288
-
279
-
275
-
252
-
217
-
215
-
214
-
195
-
190
-
157
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
145
-
141
-
141
-
141
-
139
-
135
-
135
-
133
-
130
-
128
-
125
-
113
-
107
-
105
-
94
-
91
-
89
-
85
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
79
-
77
-
75
-
75
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
68
-
65
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
46
-
45
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@gokuson8090 then they should actually do things that add value. Learn, and then add substantive information on the issue. Smashing businesses windows, and putt ing up graffiti only ghettoizes the city further, and causes more businesses to close, and more to choose not to open in an area. Also, smashing windows and graffiti is childish. It’s a temper tantrum. If you want change, you must define what change, and how we should go about implementing it. Two years ago these people rioted, did it cause the SH mage they wanted. No, still poor quality police. Better thought, define what you want from police, lay out what needs to be done to get it, and ask for that.
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
-
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
-
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
-
I know you don’t like the term Sean, but if you vote for it, you can have it. I say that with the encouragement that they will stop the attitude of vote blue no matter who. I don’t think that’s an NPC point either. They need to feel the pain to change. I moved from LA becuase of those people. I defended my business during the riots, had a huge loss due to a burglary months later, routinely had to get in arguments with addicts about doing drugs outside, had clients cars broken into at a lot I paid for spots for clients, had the business tagged 3 times. This was in West Hollywood too. At a certain point, it just seems like the people want this. So I say let them have it. Let them learn as they become victims. It really seemed to help with Anna. Conservatives, leave blue states, like I did. Let them show us how it’s done. Once they drive the property values to zero, and it becomes a wasteland, we can take it back. It’ll probably take a few decades.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@MamaMOB no, I don’t think he knows how to use it, and I also think that the average American is ill equipped in every way to do what you are saying. Most Americans are overweight or obese, most Americans are not routinely doing strength and conditioning, most Americans aren’t trained in disarming individuals, and most Americans aren’t proficient enough with a firearm to use it if need be in the heat of the moment after disarming them which they may have to do. For that reason, I would recommend most Americans don’t do that unless they met all the priors.
I went through special operations training, trained cqb, trained at an mma gym, and current strength and conditioning coach, and I can tell you most Americans aren’t up to the task you’re asking and increasingly the likelihood they die. You’re forgetting the camera man and other boyz not pictured are there on the side of the criminal. What you’re asking would likely cause the average citizen higher risk then just complying and getting the away off the X as soon as possible. It is bad advice unless you meet all the priors, and I still think it isn’t great advice.
The real solution: be in shape, know how to use a weapon, how to create distance to use that weapon, maintain situational awareness to avoid someone getting the drop on you, and carry CCW at all times. If you don’t have that, get the hell away as quick as you can.
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
-
@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
-
4
-
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
-
You want to be a sanctuary city. You wanted open borders, and vote for politicians that support that. You support the abolish ICE nonsense. You vote for mayors and DAs that don’t want to punish immigrants for felonies because then they would be deported. You said a wall is racist, that America first is racist, you said law and order is racist. When trump said that ms-13 was animals, you said he was racist for that. This is the consequences of voting patterns, virtue signaling, and believing we can support everyone. You have gotten what you voted for good and hard.
Texas has been dealing with about 7,000 thousand a day. Chicago is dealing with several thousands over a year. Imagine what it is like for El Paso or Laredo. You are barely getting a rush compared. Stop complaining. Texas can complain, they wanted other policies, you wanted these. You got em’. Enjoy. In fact, liberal enclaves should be taking all of the illegal migrants or the vast majority because they wanted this, then they should feel the consequences of their actions.
If you admit you were wrong, vote for other people, this can change. But the first step in changing is admitting you were wrong and that you have a problem.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ no, it’s not. Take the line of logic to its end. If it’s immoral for someone to take something from you against your will, it’s immoral for ten, a hundred, a thousand, or a million. Therefore, any act taken by the state against an individual who only seeks to remain unmolested is an attack. Therefore, any state that says it speaks for every person and singles out taking any persons or any groups property is immoral. Therefore, the state is immoral. Where is the error in the rationale. It is the only defensible position if you believe governments shouldn’t take people’s property. If you do think it’s ok to take people’s property at all, then there is no reason to put any property off limits.
It is further foolish to assume over time your governments wouldn’t seek to take more from you once they realize how much they can already take. It’s a large feedback loop that only gains momentum overtime. It is only interrupted through peaceful or non-peaceful intervention.
As your rights have been trampled on further and further, how would you suggest putting the genie back in the bottle?
There is only one feasible solution in the end. We retain the right to be unmolested in our property outside of direct harm committed against another to gain that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@unkownperson9250 I see you’re lost in translation, friend. It was obvious sarcasm, not to you though. Notice the context clue of the clown emoji. Also, notice the historical reference to the kulaks. If you don’t know who the kulaks were, take some time and go look it up. Also, look at the second part of my comment. I think when you add all those pieces up, you see it was sarcasm. Finally, start talking in complete words and sentences. You come off as a feral child. You’ll have better dialogue with people when you speak clearly. Definitely look up the kulaks. I think the joke will make sense at that point. Remember, just because schools don’t teach history, or anything else anymore, you don’t have an excuse to not learn.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That comment in the thumbnail is totally fair. The phrase trust the science was the most unscientific thing ever propagated. Science is about inquiry, and evidence standing up against scrutiny. It reminds us that if people don’t want us to do that, we should immediately dismiss them.
Further, your example shows us that people are people. Most people are not these great honest humans, and they are motivated by other interests, so having a healthy amount of skepticism is nice.
Further, we should keep open minds for things that aren’t malicious but that are
not incentivized. The file drawer effect comes to mind.
I’m the end, science is model. All models are reductionist by nature, and likely incomplete in some way. Science is a useful model with a tool set for moving us closer truth, and we should use it. We should never blindly worship or not be able to question.
The scientific community has brought this all on itself after Covid. You really didn’t think that there would be backlash from people who faced lockdowns, masking, and forced vaccinations. Eat the humble pie, and remember we should always be able to question.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I didn’t vote in the poll. I found your channel recently. Your military videos are great but I think what really sets you apart for me is your deep breakdown of politics, economics, and the ideologies that surround them. How you break down these down in detail from definitions and throughout different time periods and cultures is incredible. Your public vs private, incredible. Your inflation of Germany’s [currency], and the explanations of the pressures of other large banking systems around the world applying similar pressures to move to paper, Incredible. Your breakdown of ancap recently another great example of how you can learn, think out loud, critique, and ask thoughtful questions is amazing. Every time you build out your definitions, your underlying logic, and apply to the situation adding further context throughout. I have never seen any video style like it in real time, and it is the thing that makes you different. It’s no that your other videos aren’t great, but no one has your style in the regards to those other videos. I think that is you addressing a niche. Hope that helps, and your content is incredible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ 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
-
@ it’s not impractical at all. How does a free market work? Spontaneous order, we all make our individual decisions and an emergence of systems and structures occurs to support those choices. It’s not impractical at all. To address it being fringe, yes, I agree due to indoctrination in government camps, schools, it is seen as fringe. It does not make it wrong though, a man once had a fringe thought the world revolved around the sun. Further, that doesn’t mean that idea hasn’t been more mainstream at different times, and can’t be again. Lastly, you say natural law isn’t really law and therefore can’t work. Laws not really law, they change interpretation based on who has power to wield against another. Again, voluntary choice lets you participate in the legal structures and systems of your choosing.
1
-
@ “failed idea, worldwide”, according to whom and by whom? If you believe in free markets, that’s is voluntarism. All I’m asking to expand that to the rest of society. Yes, people won’t pay taxes, they’ll pay for services, and to be a part of structures. You already do that, and it’s the best part of our society. It’s true, with no government you’ll have no child support. You will also have people making better decisions about who they decide to lay with and under what conditions. You will also have people who make mistakes still, and they will live with the consequences which is the best way to have change occur, pain is very powerful that way.
You have it backwards, it’s precisely my understanding of human nature that makes me against large governments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is clearly what they have been trying to do. They can’t outright ban guns. They don’t have the political power too, and even if they did, they would have to come take them all at once, which wouldn’t go over well for the messengers. What they can do is close the ability overtime to defend yourself, even by making it costly, and publicly running you through the mud. This is what they did with Rittenhouse. That’s why his trial was so important. He wasn’t on trial. What he did was clear, and all on tape from multiple angles. The concept of self defense was on trial, and they wanted to put him in jail on a national platform to show that the ability of self defense was being taken away. Doing it this way allows them to pick people off one at a time, and scare the rest into submission. No surprise they are still fighting for that. It’s important at this time that we actively support self defense cases, verbally and monetarily. We should all also buy multiple firearms. Give them as gifts. Everyone should get a couple pistols, an AR platform, and maybe a shotgun, and hunting rifle. Then go to local ranges to buy training, and practice. Recruit friends to come with you that don’t own guns. Pull them into the culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandonjohnson191 PV is doing investigative journalism. My point was Steven was acting under the guise of friendship for that call. That was wrong. If I have known you for over ten years, you call me up, and we talk about our wives, and kids. Then you decide to set me up, I’d be pissed. Steven did exactly that, he recorded a call knowing he would use
It in public, so he made sure edit himself. He didn’t even catch Jeremy on anything he wouldn’t have said anyways. Using the term a wage slave amongst a friend can just be considered tongue in cheek. These are well paid pundits. Steven makes it out as if they are taking advantage of child coal miners. Steven misused his friends trust. Everyone that knows him now will second guess how much they can trust him. The quartering already said that’s in the back of his mind now. Mark Dice told Steven to lose his number. You don’t do that to friends. Did you watch Jermeys response, Matt Walsh’s, and Lauren Chen’s. No one thinks he is right for recording this call. I understand his position about the contract, but in the end, that’s
Not how you solve an issue you have had with a friend for ten years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong move. The goal is for them to bend to our will. With companies, no permanent friends, and no permanent enemies. The left does this well, and we must adopt it. If you meet our demands, we return at full strength. Outside of that they have no incentive to change. Further, no other company has an incentive to apologize in the future. Also, we should free up are ability to focus on other brands, which means we need to finish with one first. People do not have unlimited attention. Finally, there are not a lot of conservative leaning companies out there, if bud denounces trans, that makes them less woke then all the other major beer brands, and we should go to them. Let’s not lose the forest for the trees. We want to win, not feel righteous. If we start teaching companies one by one where we can to get out of culture war issues we can have a much bigger effect then just stopping forever with one company. Let’s win.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MalefaxTheBlack no joke. In TN we just outlawed drag shows for kids, underage gender change nonsense, and we have permit-less open and concealed carry. We also just got rid of the members of our legislature that acted out of order the other day. There was a time during the late 80s and early 90s where people decided they had enough of criminals. They took off the kids gloves, had three strokes laws, had the 94 crime bill. So yeah, get tired of it, and vote someone in that will punish criminals. Or move to a red state, and make sure to maintain control, vote outreach, spread your values. That’s one of the biggest problems on the right, they always March forward spreading their values in institutions, the right needs to do that as well. Look st Florida, they are crushing right now. Stop crying, start making change happen or move.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two things:
This would be worthwhile if he changes twitters policies around banning, shadow banning, and demonetization. For someone like crowder, this would be huge, because he would know his content wouldn’t be demonetized and he has a huge audience.
I’m a paying member for ad free YouTube. I hate ads, and I hate the silencing of other opinion. I don’t use social media. I only have YouTube, and watch it, mostly for news, sports highlights, and a lot of educational content. Whatever app allows the most free expression, and has ad free, I’m in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
Part 2. Hell yeah. Sequels rarely live up to the original but I believe in this bright group of activists.
These stores have insurance, what’s the problem? Looting, stealing, these are all tools of the oppressed to get their reparations. We need to be celebrating these bold freedom fighters, not punishing them. They have been held down by the system for too long. After all, everyday, every one of these kids are hunted by the racist police, and I just think they’re tired of taking it. The system is clearly not wrong in for them and they are being forced to do this.
I expect the news outlets to start showing these stories in a more positive manner. You guys had it right before. Fiery but mostly peaceful, like Kenosha, and the rest of 2020. Don’t be part of the problem. It was only a few hundred of the thousand kids who caused any problems.
This is equity at break neck speed. The hood is already trashed, now we can bring the rest of the city down to the same level.
Do you think mayor elect Johnson was lucky enough to have any of these fine revolutionaries as his students. I bet they didn’t get Fs, and not because he doesn’t give them, but because they are clearly well trained activists.
Enjoy your weekend everyone, especially our little red guard youths.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not really a fan of Mr beast. But I don’t Hassan giving up his mansion for people to get these surgeries. I don’t see it from Tim either. If the guy wants to do something nice, and gets content from it, I don’t see the harm. I guarantee you that the people he helped don’t see the harm either. The reality is, if we had universal healthcare, it would still be rationed, and if we did have it, tim, and hasan would have to pay more in taxes. It’s easy to criticize when you’re not doing anything. What charity are you running? I still like your work tim, but you can’t be talking about how great it is living in low tax West Virginia, and saying people just need to help people. Well, he’s a person helping people. I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Do it, and do it better. Don’t tell me, show me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Please look up Thomas Sowells writings about Jews in foreign lands. In general, human beings are tribal, and when things aren’t going well, typically leaders need scape goats. Enter the Jews, who are typically a minority in most places, meaning there a few of them and the mass can target them. They have also typically been successful at merging into other societies, and building wealth in those societies, because of their culture around education, and work ethic. Because they are low in number, and have tended to perform well, they have made great scape goats in the past. In order to other them, they have historically been othered as a race even though they could be any nationality or race. This has been fairly easy for leaders to do because of how historically tight their communities were, and that they marched to the beat of their own drum any where they go. Typical human behavior, point something out different, and attack.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thankful for Lenora. That being said, you can’t defund the police, let criminals run the street, say ACAB, say rioting and looting is good or some form of reparations, demonize any police shooting of a black man regardless of context and hope for a good police force. Think of the incentive structure created. If you’re a cop, it’s easier to turn your head then intervene, instead of get called a racist or potentially locked up for proper use of force. When you set up that incentive structure, good people who want to make changes leave the police force. You’re left with people there for a check, and people who just want a check don’t want issues. Policing should be better. The answer was to increase the pay, and simultaneously increase the standards. But we decided this is what we wanted, because we wanted to react emotionally and tribally. Now we have this. Happy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@blazinpuffs she may have meant no license on her. He wasn’t citing her for a traffic citation. If he wanted to arrest, and cite her for a traffic citation, he should have said that. He said very clearly he was citing her for trespass. This has nothing to do with driving. Based on what happened, all he had to do was tell her to kick rocks. She didn’t actually steal anything, assault anyone, cause property damage. She got punched in the face after an argument with an employee about 49 cents. Could she have acted better, absolutely. Was it the officers job to deescalate, yes. Did he? No, he escalated. Was it his job to make a gut call about arguing with this woman over 49 cents, yes. Should he have done the smart thing, tell her to bounce, and not come back. Then get back out on the street, and focus on higher level issues. This woman was not a threat to the community, and this whole incident was about an overblown argument over a 49 cent cheeseburger.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The left:
sexual revolution, free the nipple, free love, hook up culture, showing my body is empowerment, sex work is work, no one should have a problem with a woman “marketing” herself on only fans.
Also, how dare you look at us, or even pay us for looking good, even though we wanted to. How dare you (Greta voice).
The left got what they wanted and now they don’t want it but still kind of want it. They only don’t want when it ruins things we like.
I am not for objectifying women in ads, be I see I wouldn’t want a female relative of mine to do it.
Jeremy, you’re wrong. Hot chick with a gun is whatever. A hot chick that knows how to handle it is next level attractive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sean, they did vote for it. If you won’t vote for people who will carry this out then you didn’t vote for it. Voting yes on resolution is irrelevant if you won’t vote for people who will carry it out.
Further, the mayor being in Ghana is a major problem because it shows a misaligned set of priorities that leads to devastation.
California has decided to elect people on slogans of protect nature and fish instead of protect people. They vilify conservatives as if they want to poison the water and air if they don’t want to buy an electric car immediately.
Policy is downstream of priorities. Their priorities were to focus on saving a fish over people, diversifying the FD vs having the most competent and capable and pushing the standard higher, and they voted for a mayor who spends a reasonable chunk of her time talking about the need to invest in Africa. When you vote for people with priorities like that you will never get policies and outcomes that serve you. It’s a hard lesson, they probably won’t learn it. Checking yes or no in box means nothing until you’re holistically serious. Hopefully, much like Ana’s mistreatment from the homeless criminal pain offers the opportunity for growth, to reckon your slogans against reality.
I’m not letting the republicans party off the hook with this either, they have their own foolish slogans as well.
Elect serious people, study positions, not slogans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quasicrystal5166 I do know the law friend. If you learn the law, what you well see is that often times cops will falsely claim that when they want to search. So often times that can get thrown out. So in that case, you should always verbally refuse searches where they proceed or not because it protects you in court. Is it possible the cops story holds, yes, but you stack the odds in your favor. Further, I agree that the cop acted kind considering that the guy was acting erratically. I already conceded that I don’t agree with how he acted. But I do not also agree that having a gun makes you criminal. They found a gun, so what? Guns are legal. Maybe he did or didn’t smell weed, but you always stack the odds in your favor by verbally not consenting to searches. I’ve known good cops and bad cops. This guy seems like he’s walking the line of becoming a bad cop. But look into what I said, and you will see that I am correct. If the cops smell gets thrown out he will pivot to that he consented. No consent means it all gets thrown out. So please, you need to learn a bit more before commenting. Also, the cop doesn’t have the right to search. That’s not what rights are. He has probable cause. Again, please learn the law.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2 reason Sweden failed. One, selection criteria and not sending people back immediately after the commit a crime. Zero tolerance would let people know you don’t come somewhere new to ruin it. Second, and the most important, the west doesn’t believe in its own culture, so the society must accommodate the foreigner instead of what would traditionally be expected of an immigrant. Victor Davis Hanson has termed this the brutal bargain. This is where someone is accepted on the presupposition that they will assimilate into the culture, learn the language, take part in the countries customs and let go of large parts of their old identity. Humanitarian immigration should operate like the French foreign legion. When you show up to the legion, they don’t care where you come from but they are speaking French, so start learning. That should be the attitude of the west. What we have built is better in almost every measurable way, and the question is do you want to take part. If not, good bye.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:51 “people are lying to themselves”. True words, until you decide to lock criminals up, and have standards, nothing will change. Parent kids, this means hours of coming and going, knowing where they are, having two parents in the household, and discipline. Stop electing people that go light on criminals. Letting less then 5% of your community terrorize the other 95% is insane. The majority of law abiding citizens our letting the minority of repeat violent criminals run their communities.
Advice to the mother with the son with an uzi in his bag. Put him in a military academy. If he is this far down the path, it will save his life.
The change in laws to not punish youth was obviously going to happen. Thomas sowell referred to this as stage 1 thinking. You think of an idea, and say that would be nice and stop there. But instead, think about the incentive structure that sets up. In this case it would clearly incentivize older gang members to actively and aggressively recruit more youths into gangs because of light or no deterrents. Move beyond stage one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You get what you vote for. If you said ACAB, if you said defund and or abolish, if you said we shouldn’t lock people up based solely on their skin color, this is what you get. If you said no police shooting is ever justified if the person shot is black, this is what you get. If you called it mostly peaceful protests, ignoring your eyes, this is what you get. If you vilified Kyle, this is what you get. Further, if you stayed silent and let the insane spout these things and said nothing, you also deserve this. People always claim in Nazi Germany, or during slavery, they would have been the ones to say something. People have absolutely been running on the platforms of not punishing criminals, and people need to decide what they want.
Remember, one party ran on the concept that law and order is racist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don’t see a problem with this. YouTube has the best video player, has a huge content base, and you should pay for products you use. If you believe in capitalism, then you pay for service. YouTube isn’t a charity. Pay for premium or watch the ads. It seems fair to me.
Adblocking is nothing like password sharing. But if Netflix wants to do that, sure, it’s their company. If more people tune out it’s fine. But the reason this is nothing like password sharing is that if you don’t allow ads to run or you don’t pay for premium, you just want content for free. That’s all you’re saying.
7:52 Jeremy, it’s not just about you selling coffee, or hats, or $5 subscriptions. Doesn’t YouTube get to make any money for hosting you, driving people to you, housing all your videos on clouds and servers, having the most advanced video features?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1