Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Fleccas Talks" channel.

Owen Marble Anonymous polls don't take into account what their understanding of rape actually is. Is unwanted touching rape? What about a lewd proposition? Or even a proposition that's isn't lewd but suggestive? Or misread signals? There have been a lot of different interpretations of rape over the last few years. It's not as cut and dry as it once was. The understanding that was once the prevalent mode was one of physical and aggressive assault where the woman was forcibly restrained, against her will and submitted to a sex act. Now, making a pass is considered rape. That definition is extremely important and must be expressed before a poll has any value.
68
@manco828 Of course. All kinds of people, crowding onto leaky boats, singing hymns and chanting slogans, as they battle the dangers of the deep, on their way to the Utopian countries of Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. Good old Cuba is letting them in, too. How absolutely delusional the left wing university students have become. They don't have a clue. Like that kid who praised Lenin but didn't know a thing about him. It's insane.
15
Some Words They've thought it through. They're using this tact to suppress dissenting voices. If they ever achieve real power, it's how they'll control the people. Dissent and face arrest. It has been the way in every Marxist country that has ever existed. It's their path to power and how they maintain that power.
5
Love that guy. He's wasn't intimidated by that fancy suit.
5
@robinsss Then what happened to it? If you took 2 million of that money and hired 50 able bodied people, they'd average 40 thousand dollars a year. That's 20 bucks an hour. All they'd have to do is for 40 hours a week, go around pick up garbage, clean up empty lots and do a little painting. At the end of that year, that area of West Baltimore would look clean. It's that simple.....but they won't do it. I'll leave it to others to explain to me why.
3
@E_Ten Which brings me to this point. Covid was a brand new disease. No vaccine. No treatment. Nothing was known about it. A couple of studies said that HCQ worked, most known the study in France. One question I have is this. Why would anyone just pick HCQ out of a hat to use as a treatment for Covid? Why that particular drug? Was there something in the symptoms and pathology of Covid that suggested that it was a logical drug to investigate? I'd say there must have been. A doctor just wouldn't choose it over so many other drugs to choose from. There had to be a reason. Which brings me to the safety question. It's been used for over 50 years as a treatment for malaria. It's known that malaria causes respiratory distress and I'd say that this was the connection that prompted doctors to try it on Covid. With over 200 million cases a year, the dangers of HCQ would be reliably documented. It would seem to me that in April, when nothing was known about the disease and I mean nothing, why wouldn't you prescribe it? It's been quite safely used and like any other drug, you don't prescribe it to those who have conditions that are known to react badly with it. There are all kinds of drugs like that. We can get aspirin over the counter, yet I know people with allergies that this aspirin will kill. I can buy peanuts at the 7/11, which is deadly for some people, but, for some reason, when you have a deadly disease, you're not even allowed to try HCQ. I find the logic baffling. At the time there was no known treatment but, if contracted, a doctor isn't allowed to even try it, in some places, just wait it out and hope that it doesn't get worse. Yet, if you had rheumatoid arthritis, a terrible disease but not nearly as immediately deadly as Covid, not a problem. Maybe it wasn't going to work but it seems that a drug that has such widespread use shouldn't be as controversial as it has been. That, to me, is baffling. It's like it was better to do nothing, than to use a drug who's side effects are well known. Then we'd have data, REAL data, instead of a political football.
3
@E_Ten When there's 140,000 dead, we KNOW what the harmful effects of Covid is. In January, 6 months ago, we didn't know. HCQ was deemed safe for use, just like aspirin and aspirin has killed people in allergic reactions, yet I can take aspirin for Covid, but not HCQ. Of course it hasn't been tested on Covid before. How could it have been? I find it rather ironic that if I have rheumatoid arthritis and I have HCQ in my medicine cabinet, I could take it if I'm diagnosed with it. I try it too. I'm 68 and it could kill me within a week, and I'm not ready to go yet and if I've used it all along, I'll use it now. However, my neighbour doesn't even have the opportunity to try it, if he can't find a doctor who will prescribed it, off label, or like in Michigan where the governor refused to allow its use. In fact, there was a politician, in Michigan who was quite ill with Covid and had taken HCQ for Lyme disease, in the past, got her doctor to prescribe it because he felt it perfectly safe. She was vilified by the state governor when she said it helped her almost immediately. I realise that it may be coincidental that she recovered but the point is, why is aspirin, with it's record ok but HCQ not ok. That's what is baffling to me and why it's become political. Had people been allowed to use it, since its safety is understood, we'd know by now whether it would be a waste of time or not. But we won't know because the politics of it clouds everything. It's beyond ridiculous, to the point of being a tragedy more than anything. Worse, the media has conflated untested for Covid with untested for safety which is being quite disingenuous.
3
@tjti2631 I don't know and do you know what, who cares? What's important now is the present and the future. Who is bringing this to light and who are the ones with gloves and work clothes on, sweating and doing something? Who's the one in a 3 piece suit doing nothing at all except talk. That's ALL that's important. The rest is just noise.
2
@Kai McCook It's a comparison. Religion is based on faith and that leaves very little room for questioning the basic tenets. She has a Marxist based ideology. It leaves NO room for questioning ANY of its basic tenets. If you do, it's a violent act and violence must be met with reprisal. It's worse but similar.
2
@E_Ten Since you're so good at this, find us a site that shows how safe it is.
2
@E_Ten I was talking about Hydroxychloroquine. How safe is it to take that drug. I never said a thing about masks. Besides, I worked a meat packing place for a time. We had to wear a mask 8 to 10 hours a day, except at breaks, 5 days a week. I've know more about wearing them than you do. My question has to do with the drug. If it's been taken for over 50 years now for various ailments, there has to be lots of data to show how dangerous or not, it is. Since you seem to have a handle on this, you must have looked into how safe it is.
2
"I'm against all laws" They just opened a mosque down the street from where I live. It's called the "House of the Commandments". My first impression? Them guys got rules. Religious laws that must be followed. I'd say she's ideologically opposed to Islam.
1
A safe space? Really? There's an outbreak of Typhus in Los Angeles right now. TYPHUS fer f---s sake.....and you feel safe. Why don't you go to East LA, you know, where the gangs hang out. I'll bet you'll feel safe there.....but I guess it really doesn't matter about those folk. As long as you're safe.
1
@Kai McCook Islam is a faith based system, as well. They have different beliefs but their reliance on faith is similar. If you're looking for offence, you'll find it. "Seek and ye shall find" seems to apply to more than God's grace. It can also be used for any situation, yet it doesn't pervert the original meaning, if you use it to describe a similar idea. Besides, how does his feelings on Christianity affect you, anyway? Your faith is enough to protect, or it should be.
1
@Kai McCook It's just an example to a certain type of evangelising religious type.....like a Jehovah Witness or even a Hare Krishna or a Mormon. You're reading WAY to much into it.
1
@Kai McCook NO....he did not. He was implying that her ideological fervour was comparable to one who has a religious fervour. That the way they approach their beliefs, their zealotry, is comparable....NOT that she was religious. It is her zealotry, in her beliefs, that's similar to the zealotry of some religious people. I really don't see how that's so difficult to understand.
1
@Asher JM Leask Yet, it's conservative types that travelled to Baltimore and joined with more conservatives in Baltimore to clean up the city. Democrats, the "liberals" are accusing them of....I'm not really sure of what they're accusing them of. Al Sharpton he travelled to Baltimore, too. However, that Democrat showed up in a 3 piece suit and complained about those who were out there doing the work. If that man really cared, he'd be in coveralls, wearing work gloves and picking up trash. Not him, though. That mess doesn't concern him in the least. Neither does the crime. Try to stop the crime by policing the area and as soon as the first miss step by a police officer, he'll show up complaining about police brutality and guess what? Individual officers are afraid to engage aggressive black criminals because it could mean their job, their reputation, their future and maybe even their safety. So the crime goes on. The garbage keeps piling up. Property values keep deteriorating and Sharpton goes back to New York and picks out another fancy 3 piece suit. Causation does equal correlation if you're the one that causes nothing to be done. The end result will be west end Baltimore. One causes the other. If you don't do the dishes and the dishes will pile up. (This is a metaphor. If you don't know what metaphor means, google it).
1
@Asher JM Leask Well, then say something of value. Say something that helps people instead of hiding behind cute little cliches that don't do a damn thing. I'd say that you don't have an legit answer to what I've said. That's why you're telling me to go away.
1
@Asher JM Leask Then tell me what those 4 words meant. Tell us all. Apparently, I've missed you're meaning. Why say something that makes no sense to anyone. Might as well say "Gobbledegook" 4 times. That would be just as enlightening.
1
I agree and I love your YouTube name. As long as I'm alive the Expos live.
1
James Raymond It should take as long as the country in question thinks it should take. If they decide that you wait 10 years, then you wait 10 years. Immigration to another country is NOT a right. It's a privilege bestowed on you by the citizens and the government of that country. If they believe that they don't have the capacity to accept every person applying for immigrant status, they have the right to set the rules for granting that status.....not the person making the application or the individuals living in that country who may not fully understand the financial and social realities of their own homeland.
1
@roderickmills5398 I agree. It was much better to have an authoritarian rule over you telling you what to say and think, where you can live and work, even tell you how to live your life. We need tyrants so we can all be free. As a matter of fact, the first order of business would be to shut up and dispose of all who would voice their own opinion. So, Roderick, be careful what you say. You do realise that democracy is a mistake and you have no right to express your own ideas.....unless they align with your own personal tyrant, who you don't get to choose.
1
@roderickmills5398 If I have no say , no vote, no way to voice or enact my ideas, then I'd say someone else has an authority over me. There is no in between. Either I have a way to be a sovereign individual with an equal opportunity in voicing how my society is governed or I DON'T. Saying I'm not too bright isn't an argument. It's an ad hominem attack and shows me nothing but poor debating skills.
1
@roderickmills5398 More ad hominem. Nothing about the topic at hand....you know.....how democracy is a horrible mistake. You seem to want to talk about me as if you think that if you can denigrate me, your assertion is true. It's illogical and what is called a logical fallacy.
1
@roderickmills5398 No......I disagreed with you. Disagreement isn't an attack. I was a bit sarcastic but it's not easy to read a statement as vague and provocative as "democracy is a horrible idea". Democracy is rather slow and cumbersome but if you look at the alternatives, it's still the best that there is. Those weirdos in the video do get to vote but guess what? They didn't vote for Trump and he's still the president and it looks as if he will win the next election as well. That might indicate that generally it works its way out. So far, the world's democracies have been the best places to live on the planet. Nothing is ever perfect, not ever. You take the best option of the imperfect choices. You've made the claim that democracy is a horrible idea but you've not even bothered to champion a better option. You just make a claim as if it can't be questioned. Well.....I'm questioning it and you've not talked about it at all. All you've done was call me names.
1
@roderickmills5398 Who gets to decide who's an idiot and who isn't? What would be the criteria? Not academics. Look at some of the clowns teaching in our universities right now. Do you go back to the monarchy? That was a terrible idea. Yes....democracy is slow and cumbersome. I said it myself. However, until someone, that includes you, comes up with a better idea, it's still the best we have. I know this because the best countries in the world to live in for the last 100 years have all been democracies, all with Constitutions to mitigate the actions of mob rule. That's what has protected us, to a certain degree, from the leftist agenda to get rid of the idea of free speech and freedom of the press. That's mob rule in action and the Constitution has, so far, been the check that has held them off. It's a democracy under checks and balances that tries to hold off the negative effects of the mob. If you can come up with a better system, I'd like to hear it. I've not heard one yet. Constitutions are a way of telling us that our freedoms to choose are still bound by the rule of law and that even the mob is bound by it. Show me the perfect system and I'll adopt that but until you can show me that system, it's the best of all the horrible ideas. The only ones, thus far, that believe in other systems are autocrats, people that want absolute power. They've always been far worse than democracies.
1
@roderickmills5398 "Time to recreate a genuine federalist system and that means local hierarchies." That still leaves us with a basic question. How do you settle on the local hierarchy. Who gets to be at the top of the hierarchy, the ones who actually make the decisions that are the best for your local entity. Should it be a monarchy type system? That was a disaster. Maybe something like what the Chinese have now, a system that grew out of the Politburo system of Stalin and Mao? A miniaturised sized version that would suit a local government. That hasn't been that great, either and the people in China don't have near the freedoms that we have in the west and we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't become a city state system where a few get to run their vassals below them. We're still may be back to a localised democracy, where the individual gets to vote on who gets to enact policy on a limited time basis. That's still a democracy. All I'm hearing is a plea for greater state rights, something the left would hate. It has also been the biggest struggle of American politics. In fact, it was State's rights that was the big issue of the Civil War.....not slavery, as many would make it. It's also state's rights that have made Oregon such a leftist paradise. They've actually relaxed laws to an extent that aren't there of a Federal level. Sanctuary cities and states are another example. It's the loony left that using state and municipal laws in an effort to get federal control. It's why these states hate Trump. He stands in their way of seizing complete control, the control that allows them to break Federal immigration laws. Yet, in California, a sanctuary state, they have municipalities that have opted out of this state legislated sanctuary status. They did it because local politics, the people, voiced their opinion, through the power of localised democratic process. The same corruption that you see on a federal level can and does happen on the local level. Citizens in Seattle went to their town council, democrats all, and complained about the homeless and crime issues in that city, and they were basically laughed at. I guarantee that had they went to the Whitehouse, Trump wouldn't have laughed at them.
1
@roderickmills5398 A lot of what we're talking about are details and we may be deflecting from the basic issue. How would the hierarchy be established in your more localised governing entities? You've not answered that. Who will be at the top of those hierarchies and why would they be there and not someone(s) else in those communities. You've not answered that. You've talked about having smaller, decentralised governments but you still haven't said how they would be run and that is my question and the central issue here. What process determines the ruling class of that hierarchy.
1
@roderickmills5398 The US is a amalgamation of states which all adhere to the Constitution of the whole. The right to vote is a central part of that Constitution and if a state abandons the right to vote for all its citizens, it has contravened the Constitution, the very ideals of the entire country. In essence, it's a step to secession. From your comments, it would seem that your problem isn't with democracy or the right to vote, it's with the size of government. That the further away a person gets from a localised government, the value of that individual person's voice carries less weight. Now, that's an excellent point and I would say that there is a very important discussion to be had on that topic. Take, as an example, what is happening in the EU. Too many Europeans feel as if they've given away control of their lives and countries to an overblown association of European nations who pass edicts without any consideration to the lives of those in different regions. A huge central government that is incredibly distant from the ordinary person who feels they've lost any voice in the country they live in. That's a travesty and that, in a lot of ways, is what I'm hearing from you. I'm saying this because you've yet to respond to the question of a better way to build a government, even on a localised level. All you talk about is federal over reach and that's a different topic. It's one of the reasons why Trump won. Those people living in the fly over states feel helpless as the big states, the populated areas, dictate how those in the rural landscape should live. That is something that I could agree with you on but I can't agree with a state or local process that doesn't include the power of the individual as participants in government decisions. That means a vote, a say in how it should be done. They're not always going to be the right decisions because people are notorious for making mistakes but it's still the best for everyone.
1
"So....do you agree with stuff in his speech that he took out?" Huh??
1
That detestable wage gap. What confuses me is if women are being paid less for doing the same job, why aren't they suing their employers? It is against the law. So, if you're protesting to the government, you're too late. They've already addressed the problem and said that employers MUST offer equal pay for equal work. You'd think that if this was such a big problem, the courts would be overflowing with women presenting their cases against employers. Yet, we're not seeing that at all. For all you ambulance chasers out there, this is an untapped market, a huge opportunity to cash in on the wage gap. Suck the money out of those elitist Capitalist scumbags. They don't need it anyway.
1
@E_Ten So it takes 50+ years to determine whether it's safe or not? They've used it for malaria, arthritis, Lupus and Lyme disease....millions upon millions of doses around the world and they don't even know if it's safe or what the long term effects are? I'm 68. If I contract Covid, I could die within a week or 2. Do I care about long term effects? Maybe in 15 years, when I'm 83, I'll have breathing problems. Maybe not. I'll never know it Covid kills me, will I. Covid kills the elderly. My dad is now 88. I haven't seen him in 5 months because of Covid and I'm finally visiting him tomorrow. If he gets Covid, what does he care about long term effects? He's in excellent health but he knows that he's going soon and he treats it with humour. A friend phones him at 9 every morning and he answers "Yup...I'm still alive!!!". However, he doesn't want to die this week, either and if he does get Covid and he feels HCQ is his best option, who cares about long term effects? He doesn't. Long term effects are meaningless when you don't have a long term. I could still have another 20 years but I don't know that. So many of the people that I've known for all my life are gone already. 70 was the lifespan when I was a kid. I'm basically there. It's the elderly that we're trying to save and you don't want to give them a drug due to long term effects when most don't have a long term ahead of them.
1
@E_Ten Says who. So it's better for my dad to risk death because if he skips the process the consequences would be catastrophic. OKAY......that makes sense. I guess risk assessment is left up to others because we're not mature or smart enough to assess it on our own. We need the to be told by our superiors. I get testing drugs for safety so it can be safely recommended within parameters, but to withhold meds for a life threatening illness when there's nothing else is taking bureaucratic interference to a new level. "It might help but we haven't tested this safe drug for that, so NO....you can't have it" However if you have arthritis and you're muscles hurt....no problem. People are dying NOW but don't give it a shot because something MIGHT happen in the future. This isn't an ordinary situation but what the heck. We'll do nothing until a vaccination is developed or herd immunity is attained at 70 percent exposure. As for ethics, what's more ethical? To try it because there are reasons why it would work or wait until till hope for the best because people refuse to see that the elderly have the most to lose by not trying and really nothing to lose by trying. Gotta have the process. Imagine watching a loved one die, just to have them tell you 3 months from now, testing is done and it's okay to use. Whew.....what a relief.....for others.
1
@E_Ten How could you know that sugar pills would be just as effective when it hasn't been tested? I've seen more than one doctor say that it works and you have this one test that says it doesn't. Besides, if it's no different than sugar pills, like you claim, what's the harm? Actually more harm for the sugar pills. He's diabetic.
1
@E_Ten It's my idea of a joke.
1