Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Sydney Watson"
channel.
-
832
-
107
-
87
-
67
-
62
-
33
-
31
-
23
-
19
-
19
-
16
-
@skknireeker9073
And that's the logic that's can't be argued against. I say that the transgender has biological advantages and you say "But they're women".
I say that they weren't women a year ago so their bodies still have male qualities that give them advantages and you say "But they're women".
I point out that it's telling that a transgender absolutely SMASHES the women's weightlifting record in their first year of eligibility and you say "But he's a woman".
I say 2 transgenders, who couldn't make the boy's high school track team last year, break the girl's state high school track records and you say "But they're women".
They're are no facts, no anomalies, no sudden amount of women's records being broken by transgender athletes that will ever make you stop and think about the implications. All you'll keep repeating, like a demented parrot, is...."BUT THEY'RE WOMEN"
This is unbelievably lacking in intellectual discourse or logic or any consideration for fairness. No human being, with even a modicum of integrity, would EVER claim bragging rights, by wearing an Olympic medal, when they've went form a category of sports where they were mediocre at best, to one where they're now the superstar. Integrity would demand that this should be a source of shame.
We have weight classes in sports for a reason. We don't just say "But they're all women" and call that a reason to do away with weight classes. Calling them women does not negate the fact that they're also transgenders, something that a lot of the women's athletes cannot claim.
To your mind, all transwomen are women. You'll never admit that not all women are transwomen and that this could be where the REAL problem lies. You only want to examine YOUR side of the coin.
14
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joepublic3933
Right now, the Voter Integrity Fund is presenting official records of 40,000 instances of people voting twice. 40,000 cases. Should we ignore that? Maybe next election, it'll be 80,000 cases of double voting or 200,000 cases. What is the magic number that will convince you that we SHOULD investigate? Of do we only do it when your personal favourite candidate is the target of this type of fraud.
If they don't straighten this out, the American elections will be nothing more than a show. No better than having a vote in North Korea. The outcome will eventually become predetermined. Is this really what you want?
Remember, these are actual records that show double voting. Wrestler Nahshon Garrett, left Arizona, 5 months ago to train in Tennessee. Official records, in Arizona, show that he received a ballot, in the mail, and that he voted. However, he insists he didn't vote in Arizona and that he voted in Tennessee. The records show that he did vote in Tennessee but they also show that he voted in Arizona. Is he lying? If he's telling the truth, then someone voted for him. No matter how you slice it, this is a fraud by someone and there are 40,000 more JUST LIKE IT. The FBI is looking at those records right now.
.....but YOU think we should move on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AndrewFishman
I loved the 70s and 80s and I was an adult. I loved the 60s, too, but it was a lot scarier. Nuclear war was the big scare, especially during the Cuban missile crisis. However, we didn't have our TVs on or weren't on social media 24/7. I do remember, as a kid, on hearing a booming explosive sound, off in the distance, being afraid that it (the nuclear war) had started. That it was all over and I wouldn't be here in a few minutes.
That was scary. It wasn't some vague, 12 years from now, threat. It was right now, at any second. I may not see morning, that was a real fear. I remember that clip that Sydney showed about the little girl and the flower. That was only a part of it. By the 70s, a lot of that fear had dissipated, thankfully.
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
-
@AndrewFishman
Maybe in hindsight the Cuban missile crisis was ridiculous but it didn't seem so at the time. It was a direct confrontation and it was on the news all the time. Everyone was talking about it and how destructive hydrogen bombs could be. Khrushchev backed down but it was more than just placing warheads. It was a showdown and the Soviets blinked first. Also, it was the very first real direct staredown with nuclear weapons. It was immediate and a real threat, not just a movie. I remember those movies. "On the Beach" was released in '59, 3 years before the Cuban crisis. It just added to the fear, among other things, that the Crisis brought. By the time "The Day After" was released, we had become desensitised to the danger. The fear was still there but not like it was in the early 60s. I was 11 years old, during that crisis, and all the kids of my time, were afraid that we'd be dead within a week. Our parents lived through WW2 and knew the dangers of war and that only added to the atmosphere of dread that we felt.
One thing about those times was that our parents would try to shield us from those things to a degree. It's impossible now with social media being the way it is. "Go out and play" was the order, so we did and it was a way to forget the danger that was hanging over our heads. Like I said, though, any loud explosive sound, would bring it to the surface. It was frightening.
1
-
@AndrewFishman
I didn't take it negatively. I understand how it was in the 80s but I was only pointing out the difference between the CMC and the eighties. I remember being at the neighbours, watching the Mickey Mouse Club, and the programming was interrupted to tell us of the latest threat from the Russians. Back in those days, regular programming was NEVER stopped for the news unless something serious was happening. Someone, on the news, actually told us to be aware of where the nearest bomb shelter was. We were country folk and there was no bomb shelter within 20 miles. My neighbour and I went outside, scared silly, thinking this was the end. Then my cousin, who as couple of years older, came by and asked if we saw the news and scared us even more by explaining the realities of a nuclear war. We thought it was coming. There was no such threat in the 80s. The possibility was real, VERY real, but there wasn't a showdown, with fingers on the button, so to speak. The news wasn't being interrupted to tell us how close a confrontation was. It was more of repeated scenarios, real but not real. My kids were aware of it, even worried about it somewhat, but were never confronted with a real situation that could have ended it all. That was the difference. It was more like the climate change threat. A real possibility but sometime in the future.
1
-
@AndrewFishman
Existential fear. A fear that our existence, today, would threaten our existence sometime in the future. Like climate change.
13 years ago, Al Gore released his movie. In it, he predicted that sections of Manhattan would be underwater, including the base of the Twin Towers. Instead, ocean levels have only risen 3 millimetres. 3 millimetres. I don't even know how you'd measure that on the scale of an ocean. Now, it's the 12 year till doomsday prophecy. It might be 11 years now, since it's been almost a year since AOC's dire prediction.
Of course, there's truth to this climate change issue. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does affect temperatures, but using timelines to predict the end is counter productive. Already, people are doubting because of Gore's movie and his water level predictions. The "scare them to death" tactic isn't the way to go about pollution problems and I'm afraid it might backfire on us. Reacting out of panic is never a great idea. Worse, it takes control out of the hands of ordinary people and places it directly in the hands of politicians. They'll tell us what to do and if you don't listen, you will pay the price. I'm afraid that if we allow the government to take control, we could destroy our country in our efforts to save it. It will become the never ending battle, the government our eternal saviour, but we must always be on guard against those who would do environmental harm. Sort of like the Orwellian enemies against the free state of Oceania in 1984. If we don't do as the government says, environmental disaster will overcome us all. It is rather Orwellian.
1
-
@AndrewFishman
Yes, I did read that. As a country boy, I'm dead set against that idea. In fact, I'm seeing the opposite right now. I live about 100 miles east of Toronto. Home prices are skyrocketing in Toronto. People are selling their Toronto homes for over 1 million dollars and buying here for 1/4 of that for the same house. Building around here is going at a breakneck speed. There are rural areas here that I don't even recognise any more and I've lived here since 52.
Some of the ideas in Agenda 21 aren't really all that bad but I have one major objection to it. It's a top down policy. They tell us and we are to listen. Being a freedom type guy, I don't like that and I believe that these things can happen through the choices of individuals. Like population control. We, in the western industrialised countries, have lowered our birthrate through the choices of the individual, not because it was imposed on us. I believe that if left to our own devices, with only minimal government mandates, we can work it out ourselves.
Which reminds me. Canada's largest military air base is about 10 miles from where I grew up. A major reason for our fear, during the CMC, was that we were sure that this base would be a prime target for a nuclear attack. Our country life didn't insulate us like it might have other places in North America or at least that's what we thought. Just to give some context to why we were so fearful back in 62.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sagchipkwe31
I'm talking about the exact same people that went absolutely insane on Brett Kavanaugh, with no evidence, like Alyssa Milano and are now endorsing Joe Biden, who was accused of the SAME thing, with more credible evidence.
The Republicans are not starting a hashtag movement like #metoo, or #believeallwomen. They're not demonstrating and chanting against Joe Biden, like they did for Kavanaugh. They're not really all that obsessed with it at all, compared to how the Democrat supporters were during the SC hearings.
My comment, which was meant as a joke, was about the hypocrisy of those who screamed at Kavanaugh and are silent and still supportive of Biden. That's it. If you want to throw in your fake outrage over Trump and the lack of outrage towards Biden, jump right in. It just validates what I said in the first comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1