Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Sky News Australia" channel.

  1.  Diane M  Ever heard of a guy named Freud?
    2
  2.  @lilanigunaratnam4200  These idiots don't even know what happens to visa fees.
    2
  3. You have to compare individual recipients. Compare those that lost their homes in Lahaina to the illegal immigrants and what they get.
    2
  4.  @simonharris4873  No, that's still Biden.
    2
  5. Obama could be charged under Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law. Hillary could easily be convicted on Espionage Act violations and her "criminal intent" definitely has to do with her Global Grift foundation that makes the Biden family look like small town mafiosi. Which is basically what those crackheads are. Biden should also be charged with violating the Espionage Act not merely because of the documents floating around but we also know crackhead "smartest guy, ever" used them to keep Burisma cronies up to speed on CIA analysis from Biden's VPOTUS (illegal) VPOTUS cache. The only one that has a clear Constitutional right to do as he pleases with "national security information" from their own tenure is Trump. And if it makes you feel better, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama can't be charged for all of the BS they hauled off. Actually, Bill Clinton got caught sending Sandy Berger in to remove documents from the national archive and they only charged Berger but not Bill. He got a slap on the risk for literally stealing a document already given to the national archives and supposedly it had something to do with warnings about OBL and the WTC attacks. But anyway, the accusers are obviously traitors afraid Trump himself will hold them accountable for their numerous crimes. Now, this "Bush lied" BS is just that. Nobody lied. It's possible somewhere along the line that somebody intentionally "cooked" the intelligence gathered. The "lie" is, allegedly, that (I think Italian) intel agents found "yellow cake" yada yada then that turned out to be inaccurate or exaggerated. Even that is not really regarded as a lie. Bush lied, people died" in childish political rhetoric. Lastly, nobody thinks that Hussein was going to leave everything in place when he knew for years that Bush threated to get UN to permit US and allies to go in. Come on, man. You think Hussein didn't follow the UN hearings? LOL. And Israel had already attacked Iraq nuclear weapons sites in the past. We're supposed to forget about that? Or we're supposed to just "know" taht Israel destroyed it all and then they decided to forget about it? Come on, man. Don't give false equivalence BS. You make it sound like Trump isn't innocent but that he needs to have every other living President join him in prison. Stop this childishness.
    2
  6.  @jrosa7319  Nope. They're proverbial kissing cousins.
    2
  7.  @idolhanz9842  The debates are still good for us to help refine what we have in common other than wanting to "delete" the DNC.
    2
  8.  @BillyWickert  You can compare and contrast but not rate one against the other. Reagan developed his political philosophy over many decades. He was very clear about what he thought of Communism from the start of the Cold War until he entered in to retirement after serving two terms as President of the United States. Trump had a slightly different road and learned from direct experience just how unhinged our "Post Cold War" government had become. If Reagan had lived long enough to meet politically active Trump he would have said "I tried to tell you." Because Trump didn't evolve politically during Reagan's terms as Governor in California. Whether or not he supported Reagan (and he probably did) he seemed to think that Communism ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He entertained the idea of doing business with China (and therefore the CCP) during the Clinton and Bush years. So that's really a different kind of evolution. Reagan fully understood Communism when fighting with Screen Actors Guild as its President starting in 1947 when a lot of idiots still thought Stalin was our friend "against Fascism". And Reagan did not want to "cut deals" with Russia or China other than SALT or similar arms treaties. I'm not saying Trump is wrong to work for economic reset with China (and therefore the CCP) but Reagan recognized the danger immediately when he first encountered Marxists in the "labor" unions and Trump bonded with the workers and accepted the status quo because, actually, Trump is a lot more practical and inherently fatalistic, or he was during his "business executive" epoch. He went along with laughing at Communist China "competing" with us and I guess he wasn't fully aware of what was happening the entire time. I am Donald Trump's age and I never understood why Clinton opened up trade restrictions with China to celebrate the collapse of Russian Communism with actual elections and privatizing assets and properties seized by the Soviet Communists. China celebrated the collapse of the Soviet Union by mowing down student protestors with tanks. Who could have missed that? OTOH, Trump was perhaps more open minded in thinking that Libertarian "seduction theory" (trade with totalitarian regimes makes them moderate as they gain prosperity) might work out. For the first time in world history. The thing is that "seduction theory" is a modern theory that presumes the prosperity will moderate the electorate. With no real elections seduction theory applied to totalitarian regimes is, well, it's insane.
    2
  9. Raw Joe Biden.
    1
  10. Truly.
    1
  11.  @XiagraBalls  LOL. Good, how? You're a fellow traveler. Big deal. What "intellectual" comment do you offer? Nothing yet...
    1
  12. @A U He has never had "special intelligence". He just spent a long time working on his pseudoscientific lexicon and he fools a lot of people in to thinking that he has added to "scientific knowledge" that wasn't already published and well-propagated before the US Civil War. Sadly, all of his comments involve circular logic and never contain any relevant facts to support his claims. It's all theory and pontification on those stale theories.
    1
  13. @Armond Welch What do you think that means?
    1
  14. @A U That is his credentialed philosophy. That's all he's got.
    1
  15.  @dfc9180  Not once did he say anything that has ever added to human knowledge. He's a male trigglypuff.
    1
  16.  @Mike1Lawless  What nonsense. Something can be personal and social at the same time. And if it's also based on testimonies of dead people then that too can be about both personal choice and public debate. It just means that it affects each person according to their own judgement. OTOH if you believe that murder is wrong that can be both personal and political. And also "religious" to the extent that it affects your beliefs and your "religious" behaviors. The problem here is that Harris commits endless fallacies when he argues that faith is harmful to society and or to persons that believe in an unseen creator that directly or indirectly affects any person's "sense of" morals. And speaking directly to your fallacious claim about "belief does not arise from reasoning' this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Your intuition and psychological reactions can come from many sources both seen and unseen. If you have a reasoned belief in something then that is itself an intellectual exercise. Discussing it is allowing others to debate. Therefore it becomes more "objective" and so forth. You don't actually know what reasoning is. You just got suckered by people like Sam Harris in to making you think arrogant Dunning Kruger "unskilled and unaware" atheists have special cognitive skills to "explain" (but only to fellow travelers) nutritively how everyone else is deluded. Anything that you say about reasoning can be turned back on you. And the only thing that you can do to defend Sam Harris is perhaps correct a misquote or something. LOL.
    1
  17.  @BabySkinCondom  Give an example to support your claim. I think you don't even know what objective reasoning is. Fallacy peddler.
    1
  18.  @BabySkinCondom  You're conflating rational reasoning in things that are outside of that believer's direct sight with "blind faith". Interesting that YOU conflated "faith" with "blind" reasoning, belief, etc. Not only that you have blind faith in unseen things that you are simply told are in contradiction with all theories of a creator-god. You don't actually know what science and empiricism are. That's why you don't know what reasoning or faith are. The end of Sam Harris's philosophy is that nobody knows anything. But you can condition yourself to put on the brakes when you see lights that turn red. These expectations (that you can learn how to drive) are derived from empiricism and some weak but still valid "science". That's all anyone can "believe" through his form of "Reasoning".
    1
  19.  @cypherpunk7675  He literally is a credentialed "science" philosopher that doesn't understand any aspect of uncertainty theory in philosophy or the material sciences. And his view of human intelligence is so dimwitted that posing as "erudite expositor" is exactly why he is rightly regarded as a fake intellectual since he is a destroyer of critical thinking and objective reasoning.
    1
  20.  @BabySkinCondom  You obviously don't know how to read properly.
    1
  21.  @jamesnelson9919  Do you understand the words that you just used and that you're responding to?
    1
  22.  @jamesnelson9919  It can't be your poor reading comprehension. Of course not.
    1
  23.  @Mike1Lawless  Great rebuttal! He obviously didn't destroy your critical thinking or objective reasoning!
    1
  24.  @jamesnelson9919  Nice "Yo' Mama" comeback, moron.
    1
  25.  @Mike1Lawless  Hilarious commentary.
    1
  26.  @Mike1Lawless  I notice that you take it for granted, seemingly, that you have some special insight or technique or something for laying out the spectrum of "nutcases" and "extremists" in some kind of objective fashion. From my point of view, it seems to me that you are clearly, way, way more "extreme" than just about everyone I've met. Of course we're not talking about "dangerous extremism" because you're just a nameless Internet troll. But as a...I don't know...a "virtual voice of reason" you're clearly as nutty as they get. You must know this. In any case, even if you don't, you at least must realize that you've offered nothing in the way of "enlightenment" of any kind. And the simple reason is that you're here to defend kooky nihilists that have no comments at all that would help the readers and listeners come up with "Reasonable Ethics" arguments or whatever. The hilarious thing about Sam Harris is that if he is taken down the road to mention anything at all about "ethics" he pretty much agrees with standard morality as taught by Christians and Jews for thousands of years but at the same time bloviates like you do about how "faith" is contrary to "reason" and therefore against "Reasonable Ethics" arguments. About the only thing I can see that would be different is that as an atheist he has to characterize gays and all sexual deviants as victims of "Theistic" ethics. He doesn't understand why a society would "rationally" want to disparage "proud" homosexuals and people that sleep around and promote abortions. And just categorically disparaging "extremism" without any kind of rational, usable definition is much worse than what religious zealots do. At least religious zealot reference a canon of some kind and then you can engage in debates from that point of view. It's much more complicated than you seem to think it is. You've never had any sense that you had anything at stake by just playing around with these nihilistic, brain dead philosophies. The only one worse than Sam Harris is Noam Chomsky. Both have created personality cults. And neither leads anyone in any kind of useful direction. I won't call them "extremists" because that's a stupid label. I think you're talking about "radicals" that expect to ignite "social" (and or political) change with their theories that they imply should be forced on others. I know lots of secular politicians that preach much worse. And those "secular" politicians that preach worse garbage are usually from the Political Identity cult where they basically demonstrate that they only join a given religious organization because it's socially and politically expedient. And the most dangerous thing about atheist radicals is that they try to do everything that they can to prove there is no God above them to judge. The only thing they have to do to avoid accountability for anything is make sure no living person can testify against whatever radical thing they want to do to reach their Utopian political goals.
    1
  27.  @Mike1Lawless  Poor you.
    1
  28.  @Mike1Lawless  I'm sure you're right. Since you say so.
    1
  29.  @vivrowe2763  Who is going to live to eat what words?
    1
  30. @rattusfinkus  Give me an example of a cheap renewable. Wind and sunlight are free. Converting those free sources to energy that replaces even one car or North Ameeican apartment in to a habitable space is not cheap. You're a sociopathic liar.
    1
  31.  @rattusfinkus  Show your case usage economic model.
    1
  32.  @donnav3270  By your standard. Just say that. And then you have the logic problem of distinguishing between "middle class" and "affluent" as if your version of affluence proves she's not from the middle class. Middle class simply means you can pay your bills and you're not a Capitalist (business owner). You're another victim of Critical Theory race and class envy-baiting. Affluence itself is a ridiculous label that Marxists love to throw around. Her problem isn't the "class" or condition she grew up in. Her problem is the ideology and sense of morals she adopted. She's an amoral parasite trying to burrow her way in to the DC "ruling class". She probably got most of that from high school and college but it doesn't help that your parents are nihilistic Marxists. Please stop feeding these pseudoscientific class stratification narratives. And if you want to understand how the USA became more stratified it started with FDR's New Deal and the academic cult known as Frankfurt School were brought to the USA by the same guy as (Communist) refugees from the Nazis. The more you people treat this stuff as fact-based or relevant in any way the more you feed the Marxist narratives that they need the power to "solve the class problems". Heck, the center of her campaign is that she's going to bring "Equity" and you help her make it sound like that's even a legitimate objective even if you're skeptical about her personal competence. Every Marxist knows that in "Democratic Socialism" it is the Brain Trust bureaucrats that do all of the Equity magic. This is 100% of the reason they scream about "Conservative" judges and the need to reform SCOTUS. They hate Clarence Thomas because he helped to abrogate Agency rulings as law and even this year we got an important victory from SCOTUS. You're feeding the beast.
    1
  33.  @donnav3270  affluent (adj.) early-15c., "abounding in, copious" (of God's grace); mid-15c. "flowing to" (of liquids), both senses now obsolete, from Old French afluent (14c.) or directly from Latin affluentem (nominative affluens) "abounding, rich, copious," literally "flowing toward," present participle of affluere "flow toward," from assimilated form of ad "to" (see ad-) + fluere "to flow" (see fluent). The especial sense of "abounding in wealth or possessions" is from 1753. The implication is that these "affluent" people have wealth flowing to them and don't really work for it. This itself is the accusation against "Capitalists" but Marx turned envy in to a religion. And even distinguishing between "middle class" and "upper middle class" fits the "ossification" narratives as if the upward mobility afforded by the Industrial Revolution under liberty AKA "Capitalism" is just a fiction.
    1
  34.  @Jamesw829  We all know Kamala is a fantastic liar. She equivocates so much that I don't think anyone really has any clear evidence of the living and marriage situation of her parents. But it's hard for me to believe that her parents were together while the father was teaching at Stanford (close to the southern most point and on the west side) and the mother was on the other side of the SF Bay and at the northern end. Kamala mentioned that she spent some time with each in or around Oakland and "Stanford" which probably meant Palo Alto. I have no idea what that pack of clowns did in Canada and frankly I really don't care in the slightest. I see no evidence that anything I've ever said about her is off-target.
    1
  35.  @Dr.StanWawrzyniak  So, if your point is that she was surrounded by "billionaires" in Canada then this fits with her "envious social climber" profile because in Stanford University you walk across the train tracks and visit a lot of "affluent" shops and if you go further down the road the mansions are something people just can't imagine. In every other city or town in California you have to go up in to the hills to see mansions like this. But because of how the city of Palo Alto was affected by Leland Stanford's relocation to Palo Alto you can understand why you have this "mansion row" between the train tracks and what used to be called Bayshore Freeway. Mansion row probably came before just about anything else in that region. This all happened before any of her ancestors knew anything about "America". And the railroad tycoons produced a legacy of class envy, for sure. https://www.pastheritage.org/PAstyle.html
    1
  36. She's not the puppet master. These things work in layers. The wife is also a moron. She controls Joe's strings, yeah. But she is also strung up by her masters.
    1
  37.  @Aaronwhatnow  No it doesn't.
    1
  38.  @Dylan_Mulvaney_OFFICIAL  That would be the funniest thing ever. Better still when he prosecutes all of these "color of law" criminals and fail to get a corrupt President to follow Trump. No Pardons for you!
    1
  39. George Carlin was a liberal libertarian. He enjoyed poking "the right" because he knew it was safe. I'm sure he hated Communists but had to be more careful about them.
    1
  40.    He's never won a race on his own other than Statewide. And he's hated more than ever. Even his own party comrades hate him.
    1
  41.  @michaeljones225  LOL. Assuming those are are real individuals you're also assuming that they're motivated by hate. You should look up the meaning of the term; Freudian projection.
    1
  42.  @michaeljones225  Hillary didn't come up with conspiracy theories? LMFAO. That's all she's known for. Search: "vast right wing conspiracy" and see what you come up with. My God. Leftists are so ignorant.
    1
  43.  @michaeljones225  You don't even know what frivolous means. And what Hillary did was corrupt the entire DOJ and FBI counterintelligence apparatus to bootstrap that in a a Special Counsel psyop and then a completely bogus Impeachment that didn't even use the Special Counsel "discovery" because there was not a thing they could legitimately pin on Trump. Had she "filed a lawsuit" then at least people could deal in an honest and transparent manner what was behind her accusations.
    1
  44.  @ragincajun7625  The judges are being petitioned to rectify earlier unconstitutional judicial interventions. The Executive Branch must faithfully execute the law, not create fake emergencies to do FTW they want with Dem Panic on covid and "special election accomadations" for their fraud schemes.
    1
  45.  @emperordalektardis  Marxism is not an ideology of the smart. Idiot.
    1
  46.  @manlydaily123  Biden and Harris are loyal Marxist puppets. That's it. That is all it takes. For Marxists. New Green Inflation Deal Reduction Act, bro. It's all good if Dear Leader says so. Xi approves. Trust me.
    1
  47.  @emperordalektardis  You're an ignoramus and a cultist.
    1
  48.  @emperordalektardis  Home and hosed. LOL. As of today she's only hosed. The liberal leaning pollsters have her down for 226 Electoral Votes. She should go home but she won't. She's a lifelong parasite and I am sure you are as well. All of the parasites are "sick and tired" of meritocracy.
    1
  49.  @LTgoBirds  Trump isn't even in the same category as that silly Kammunist traitor. You clearly have no idea how to lead anything. What leadership experience do you have? It's sad that we have many people like you in the USA that have "voting rights" no matter how poorly educated you are.
    1
  50.  @louminarty  The specific bribe they're talking about was $5 million to Joe and another $5 million to Hunter. So it was a $10 million bribe and that's just from one transaction in a small country near China and Russia.
    1