Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9.  @Havanorange  What do you need an outline for if you know what you're talking about? Of course he blows up at the stupid questions of reporters. He's trying to organise help for the tens of thousands of people who need it after the hurricane and the idiot reporters want to talk about climate change. How does that get fresh water, food, medical help and electricity to those who need it? How does that get information for what to do to get help? It would piss me off too when reporters are only caring about their own political agenda. It's the same when the reporter asked about the "Don't say gay" bill. It doesn't say that ANYWHERE in the bill and he called that reporter out on it. The MSM were determined to carry that message and it was a baldfaced lie. That the media would intentionally lie about a bill that wants for keep teachers from talking about sexually explicit topics to kids between the ages of 5 and 8, straight or gay but the media just wanted to cloud the issue with their lies. That would piss anyone off. Even you if they intentionally lied about something that you said. When I studied public speaking in college, I never used notes either. I would study my topic thoroughly so when I was asked question during the question period, I could answer them quickly and succinctly. That meant that I was organised enough to know that material and didn't NEED notes to refer to and I got an A as a final mark. You're the one that said that he was unorganised and that's why he doesn't use notes. I beg to differ. He doesn't use notes because he knows his stuff and that takes a great deal of hard work and organisation.
    1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27.  @TheBelegur  The Fascist system in Italy was different than the one in Spain, which was different than the one in Nazi Germany. Just because it doesn't EXACTLY match the one in China, doesn't mean that it's not a form of Fascism. If the CCP has half interest in business, that it implies that the other half is privately owned. That goes against everything that Marxism or communism stands for. communism definition: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. If part ownership of a business is allowed, then it's NOT communism. Fascism definition: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. The Party and particularly, Xi Jinping, is the leader or dictator, as it were. He's officially the Paramount Leader, the Communist Party Leader, the Head of State and the Commander in Chief. He has a firm hand on his power. China is also VERY nationalistic. Look at the Uighur camps, in which they are being re-educated into learning Chinese, getting away from Islam and then integrating them around China so they can be assimilated into the Chinese culture. Not quite as aggressive as Nazi Germany but definitely leaning that way. From this, I'd say that China is closer to be a Fascist country than a communist one. Marx would NOT approve of what is going on in China, right now.
    1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32.  @scottfarner5100  She crossed 6 years ago and was a Canadian citizen. She went to live with an American in hopes of marriage that she met when he was in Canada. However, none of that matters. Refugee status has to do with those who come from a nation embroiled in wars and are displaced citizens due to the effects of that war. Asylum seekers are those who are faced with imminent threats of torture of persecution in their home countries. There is no WAY that everyone coming across the southern or northern borders, including my sister, meet or met those requirements. They're coming because they're having economic difficulties (they're poor) at home and they know that the current US administration won't question or enforce those asylum requirements. Also, separating children from the adults that are accompanying them, has NOTHING to do with asylum or refugee status. Having a child with you isn't an automatic indication of lawful refugee or asylum status and has NOTHING to do with those immigration laws. They're either running from wars, torture or persecution at home. If they can't show that they're facing such dangers at home, they can't seek asylum as refugees. That's the law. You can't show up with a child and say that you're a refugee and then say that this proves that you're a refugee or seeking asylum. It's an illogical claim. It's NOT the questions that determine refugee or asylum status. It's the answers. Can they show the requisite determination for legal immigration status as refugees or asylum seekers or not. That's the question. Rubber stamping requests and letting them come in to disappear into the country is a TERRIBLE policy. Also, if you're from Nicaragua, and you're being persecuted, you go to the nearest country (Honduras) to seek asylum. If they don't allow your case, you go to the next country, Guatemala and do the same. If refused, go to Mexico. There is NO evidence that this is happening. People are coming from all over the world, going to Mexico (not Canada) and then seeking asylum at the US border. They're doing it because the US is seen as a rich country and that's why they want to go there. It's also why, they're not going to Canada and heading south. Canada is already seen as a rich country and no one would come from there to seek asylum, which is why my sister was sent home and threatened with jail if she ever returned. You don't just claim to be a refugee. You have to prove it and this isn't happening at the southern border.
    1
  33. 1
  34.  @debbieassini8934  No, he said the "peacefully and patriotically" phrase shortly after 12:00. He finished his speech at 1:10 just as the rioters started throwing metal poles at security. At 1:45, the rioters surged past security. At 3:13 Trump tweeted asking people to remain peaceful. Trump was at the Ellipse, close to the White House, when he gave that speech. That's a 1.8 mile walk to the Capitol Building. The "peaceful and patriotic march" would have taken around 40 minutes according to Google Maps and that's on a normal day, not when there were tens of thousands marching. Trump was in the limo "grabbing the steering wheel away from the driver" a nonsensical claim. Everyone knew that there was going to be a large protest long before that day. Why was there more security in place? People asked for it. Even Trump did. Another thing, why wasn't there the outrage when BLM rioters threw Molotov cocktail and other projectiles at the White House and security? They even tried to set fire to the Church of the presidents, at the edge of the White House lawn. Trump and family had to go to a secure bunker for their safety. That's sure sounds like an insurrection where the president had to hide from a mob for his own safety. Yet, the media mocked and called him "Bunker Boy". There were fires all over Washington that day. I suppose that's a good insurrection as opposed to the bad one on J6. I say that BOTH were bad but there's no evidence that Trump planned the riot. It was supposed to be a protest and that's legal in the United States. According to Democrat supporters, burning, looting and attacking police is okay, depending on who does it. Violence should be called out, EVERY time, not just when it done by people that you don't like.
    1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1