Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "The Young Turks"
channel.
-
21
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The left thinks it cute little black girls are being taught racial tribalism before their ABCs. And don't you dare give me that "It's different because they never see themselves on screen" crap. A study reported no less than NPR showed African Americans are already over-represented on TV. Even when I was growing up we had That's So Raven, The Famous Jet Jackson, Little Bill, Reading Rainbow, Smart Guy, etc. The last 6 Disney female leads (Jasmine, Mulan, Mirabel, Mei, Raya, Jasmine, and Moana) have all been POCs but if little white girl were rejoicing that the next princess "looked like them" you'd puke your guts out and then use the video to justify CRT.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What a lovely orgy of anti-Americanism.
"To essentially cover up what the US military represents to all countries abroad."
Last time Pew Research did a poll, the most pro-American countries in the world were South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Israel. All 4 of those have a history strongly intertwined with the US military. Grenada literally has a holiday dedicated to America's intervention in their country, and according to an ABC poll Panamanians supported America's invasion of their homeland by a margin of 92% to 8%. Not to mention the tremendous humanitarian relief provided to Haiti after the quakes, Pakistan after the floods, Asia after the tsunami, etc. Even the Iraqis said, in an April 2004 poll, that they believed America's invasion of their country was "worth it" by a margin of more than 2 to 1. It wasn't until they decided to mass murder each other in sectarian warfare and then blame America that they changed their tune.
And yes, the US does care about human rights. How do we know? Because if we didn't, looking after our interests abroad would be 100X easier. Imagine how much smoother the Iraq war could have gone if we just put in a pro-American despot instead of letting the Iraqis vote Sadrists into parliament.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
"When I was in college, I read a book by George Gilder, one of the wisest thinkers of the last half-century, titled “Naked Nomads,” which had a deep impact on me. It was about single men and all the pathologies associated with them. For example, Gilder drove home the point that the biggest factor concerning violent crime was that it is overwhelmingly committed by single men.
While there was no danger—I would say no chance—that I would commit a violent crime (though I was, at the time, single), this fact along with others in the book made me a lifelong advocate of marriage.
I also came to realize that raising good men was the most important thing society could do. If it doesn’t, the male propensity to physical aggression and predatory sexual behavior will wreak havoc. Therefore, raising boys to control their natures is fundamental to society avoiding chaos."
Those are the first three paragraphs of Prager's article. I'm sure TYT loved every word of it, except for the endorsement of marriage.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"When I was in college, I read a book by George Gilder, one of the wisest thinkers of the last half-century, titled “Naked Nomads,” which had a deep impact on me. It was about single men and all the pathologies associated with them. For example, Gilder drove home the point that the biggest factor concerning violent crime was that it is overwhelmingly committed by single men.
While there was no danger—I would say no chance—that I would commit a violent crime (though I was, at the time, single), this fact along with others in the book made me a lifelong advocate of marriage.
I also came to realize that raising good men was the most important thing society could do. If it doesn’t, the male propensity to physical aggression and predatory sexual behavior will wreak havoc. Therefore, raising boys to control their natures is fundamental to society avoiding chaos."
Those are the first three paragraphs of Prager's article.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cariwaldick4898 How much clearer can I make it? It costs trillions of dollars to support these retirement pensions. That money could be going to curing cancer patients, sending kids to college, supporting those who are genuinely incapable of working (which is what disability benefits are for, not retirement pensions), *or letting people currently busting their asses in the work force keep more of what they earn*. Yet it goes to people who simply don't feel like working anymore instead? What kind of moral nihilism is that? Of all the things that could be human rights, why should that be one?
Don't give me that crap about "Oh, but they paid into the system, they deserve that money back!!!" First off, with life expectancy increasing, people will be getting MORE than they paid into the system if the retirement age isn't raised, at the next generation's expense. Second, every Social Program creates this kind of injustice, and you leftists never ever are bothered by it in the slightest in any other case. A doctor or lawyer will contribute 10X as much to France's pension funds as anyone else, yet still not be able to take out any more than anyone else. They'll pay hundreds of thousands into the system they never get back but this doesn't bother you.
it's just moral common sense retirement should not be the governments business. If someone is literally incapable of working, that's what disability benefits are for. But if you can't eliminate this ponzi scheme entirely we should at least erode it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stumpy32 "Are you literally arguing for all citizens to work a full-time job until the day they die? Are you a fking idiot? OK let me break down your moronic comment:"
I would ask if you're an idiot but we already know the answer is yes. I'm not arguing people should be forced to do anything, but they shouldn't have the government steal their money so it can set their life on a predetermined path. I should be able to decide to save that money for my retirement or not, instead of having it taken from me and being given no choice. If people end up working full time jobs until they day they croak, so what? If we can say working full time is an unthinkable horror at 63, why not at 33?
"I really don't understand how you think that the government is funding retirement. All of these sources of retirement funding belong to THE WORKER. The worker paid into it during their career, they are entitled to it."
For God's sake, by this logic the government doesn't fund anything. Where do you think the government gets its tax dollars for.
"There's nothing to 'justify', it's the workers' own money. It's really very simple."
1) With life expectancy increasing, everyone who retires gets more into the system than they take out of. If you worked from 20 - 65, during that time period, the average person might have lived the retired life for ten years and you paid for that. Then you retire and live 20. Where does the funding for that extra 10 come from? It's not from you.
2) When have you leftists ever cared about workers getting back what they contribute into the system? Isn't the whole point of Social Programs is to ensure this kind of injustice happens? What's the point of giving the government $10 just to get $10 back? The reason things like Social Security exist is precisely so people who didn't contribute to the system can still take money out of it, and those who contributed little can still take out a disproportionate amount.
"Everyone on earth ages and loses physical functioning"
Then cover this with disability benefits. Also why are the French losing this functionality so much quicker than everyone else? A retirement age of 62 or younger is unheard of almost anywhere in the world.
"or you force those people to work full-time jobs to support themselves until the day they die (which would literally be impossible for the many jobs that require heavy physical labor)."
And many jobs don't. Why can't someone work a physically intensive job until they're fifty, and then move to a less physically demanding role?
"If you support this, you are a very cruel person (and stupid, because that path is NOT SUSTAINABLE)."
Lol, because its totally sustainable for French people to spend literally half their lives as dependents, first as minors, then as retirees. Also, again, France's retirement age is unusually low. Why is it sustainable for Canadians to retire at 65 but the French can't retire at 64?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dear unspeakably despicable liberals,
If you are against this, why do you support ANY government programs that offer a specific resource? Why don't we get rid of medicaid, subsidized housing, and foodstamps and just give cash handouts. If someone spends all their food stamps allowance on a videogame...well, they must just really like videogames! Nothing to scammy going on here! Maybe they are willing to starve the rest of month because they just love COD so much! If someone spends money allotted to them for a life saving surgery on new sneakers, that's okay, right? Nothing to see here! If someone spends the aid the government gives them for rent on a trip to a five star spa, ensuring they will be homeless the next month, who cares? It must be their birthday, right!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When I was in college, I read a book by George Gilder, one of the wisest thinkers of the last half-century, titled “Naked Nomads,” which had a deep impact on me. It was about single men and all the pathologies associated with them. For example, Gilder drove home the point that the biggest factor concerning violent crime was that it is overwhelmingly committed by single men.
While there was no danger—I would say no chance—that I would commit a violent crime (though I was, at the time, single), this fact along with others in the book made me a lifelong advocate of marriage.
I also came to realize that raising good men was the most important thing society could do. If it doesn’t, the male propensity to physical aggression and predatory sexual behavior will wreak havoc. Therefore, raising boys to control their natures is fundamental to society avoiding chaos.
Over the course of a lifetime, however, I have come to realize that while society was right about males, it was wrong about females. Whether spoken or unspoken, most people thought that girls just didn’t need to be raised to control their natures nearly as much as boys did."
Those are the first four paragraphs of the article. It's funny how Dennis Prager is sexist for thinking both genders are fallen in their own way, but when the left says men are uniquely predisposed to evil its called equality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When I was in college, I read a book by George Gilder, one of the wisest thinkers of the last half-century, titled “Naked Nomads,” which had a deep impact on me. It was about single men and all the pathologies associated with them. For example, Gilder drove home the point that the biggest factor concerning violent crime was that it is overwhelmingly committed by single men.
While there was no danger—I would say no chance—that I would commit a violent crime (though I was, at the time, single), this fact along with others in the book made me a lifelong advocate of marriage.
I also came to realize that raising good men was the most important thing society could do. If it doesn’t, the male propensity to physical aggression and predatory sexual behavior will wreak havoc. Therefore, raising boys to control their natures is fundamental to society avoiding chaos."
Prager acknowledges the male propensity for violence literally in the first three paragraphs of the essay. You're just upset that, after being told by your party for your entire life that evil is only something men are biologically capable of, Prager dare suggest otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When I was in college, I read a book by George Gilder, one of the wisest thinkers of the last half-century, titled “Naked Nomads,” which had a deep impact on me. It was about single men and all the pathologies associated with them. For example, Gilder drove home the point that the biggest factor concerning violent crime was that it is overwhelmingly committed by single men.
While there was no danger—I would say no chance—that I would commit a violent crime (though I was, at the time, single), this fact along with others in the book made me a lifelong advocate of marriage.
I also came to realize that raising good men was the most important thing society could do. If it doesn’t, the male propensity to physical aggression and predatory sexual behavior will wreak havoc. Therefore, raising boys to control their natures is fundamental to society avoiding chaos."
Those are the first three paragraphs of the article. I'm sure the left loves every word of this (except for the endorsement of marriage), but when Dennis dares suggests that maybe women have their flaws too, he's sexist. Funny how that works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sixstanger00
"This is - in every respect - a right-wing attempt to force the working class into staying in the mines for as long as humanly possible. The rich don't want to get their lily white hands dirty, and they're terrified of a shrinking workforce"
Your conception of the rich is as imaginary as fairies living in castles in the sky. Stop making everything about this mythical race called "the rich". As I've said a hundred times here, even liquidating every penny of assets from every billionaire in France would not pay for a single year of pensions for all of France's citizens. And you could only do that once.
"This is an ass-backwards way of looking at this policy. You are demanding a percentage of people don't die at a certain age so your system will work.
Nature doesn't give a fuck what you want to be the case. People who reach 65 and become deathly ill can't then lay on their death bed and say, 'Well shit...I can't die for at least another 13 years, otherwise the Social Security system won't work right.'"
Jesus Herbert Walker Christ, what? I can't even begin to wrap my head around what you're saying here. People who become deathly ill will die and therefore not be burdening the Social Security System. So again...what? That comment doesn't make a lick of sense.
"Since they were old enough to work, they paid into the system under the pretense that once they reach 65, they would get that money back. "
No. If you were working from 20 - 65 and retire this year, during the period where you were paying into the system, the average person might have lived 10 years before retiring. Due to advances in technology, you will likely live 20. So you paid for 10 years, got 20. Where does the expenses for the additional 10 come from.
"Now you're sitting there advocating for literal THEFT. You are saying that the 5 years worth of retirement between 65-70? They just lost that money. The average annual SS benefit is around $29,800."
Oh right, because you leftists totally wouldn't know anything about that. Except that that sort of theft is the entire point of every social program . Why do you support things like universal medicaid, welfare, if not because it allows people who've contributed little or nothing into the system to still take just as much out of it as the doctors, lawyers etc. who paid for 90% of these programs but will probably never use it? Why would ANY social program exist on the premise "give the government $10, get $10 back". That makes no sense.
NOW you suddenly care about the injustice about people not getting back what they paid into the system? When that's been the very essence of leftwing economics from day one?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@screenarts That nonsense about wages not increasing with productivity is just that: nonsense. Yes, workers are more productive than they were 50 years ago, but guess what? They also have more purchasing power. That's why in the US, for instance, the median house size has doubled in that time. So, in effect, their wages have risen.
Yes, capital without labor doesn't exist. Which is why the vast majority of the revenue a business makes does go back to the workers. A typical Fortune 500 business runs a profit margin of about 10%. Walmart runs a profit margin of 1.1%. No one, literally no one, denies workers have a right to some of the wealth the business generates. What you want is for workers to have the right to all the wealth a business generates, even though they weren't willing to pay the start up costs (buying the equipment, the building, etc.). You think the rich should just fork over $200,000 to build a McDonalds out of the goodness of their hearts, and get nothing in return.
If you really don't like "capitalists" so much, start a co-op. But you won't. Because you love the convenience they provide for you, you just can't stand the thought they demand anything in return.
By the way, it's not only the rich who live off of corporate profits. If you have a 401K, you do too. Most people benefiting from corporate profits are average Joes.
And for Pete's sake, do you think everyone making over $150,000 a year is a business owner? That's like 5% of the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh right, this is hateful, but the not the "Kill All Men" hashtag.
"When I was in college, I read a book by George Gilder, one of the wisest thinkers of the last half-century, titled “Naked Nomads,” which had a deep impact on me. It was about single men and all the pathologies associated with them. For example, Gilder drove home the point that the biggest factor concerning violent crime was that it is overwhelmingly committed by single men.
While there was no danger—I would say no chance—that I would commit a violent crime (though I was, at the time, single), this fact along with others in the book made me a lifelong advocate of marriage.
I also came to realize that raising good men was the most important thing society could do. If it doesn’t, the male propensity to physical aggression and predatory sexual behavior will wreak havoc. Therefore, raising boys to control their natures is fundamental to society avoiding chaos."
As usual, the left's definition of hate is someone on the right stating we're all human, and all fall short of the grace of God, where as you live for the beliefs all evil comes from European DNA or the Y chromosome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When I was in college, I read a book by George Gilder, one of the wisest thinkers of the last half-century, titled “Naked Nomads,” which had a deep impact on me. It was about single men and all the pathologies associated with them. For example, Gilder drove home the point that the biggest factor concerning violent crime was that it is overwhelmingly committed by single men.
While there was no danger—I would say no chance—that I would commit a violent crime (though I was, at the time, single), this fact along with others in the book made me a lifelong advocate of marriage.
I also came to realize that raising good men was the most important thing society could do. If it doesn’t, the male propensity to physical aggression and predatory sexual behavior will wreak havoc. Therefore, raising boys to control their natures is fundamental to society avoiding chaos."
Those are the first three paragraphs of the article. I doubt you found anything objectionable. But God forbid we shatter the leftist view that evil is an exclusively male domain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1