Comments by "milcoll73" (@thurin84) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. 315
  2. 207
  3. 106
  4. 91
  5. 51
  6. 47
  7. 42
  8. 41
  9. 41
  10. 40
  11. 31
  12. 23
  13. 19
  14. 19
  15. 16
  16. 14
  17. 14
  18. 13
  19. 11
  20. 11
  21. 10
  22. 8
  23. 8
  24. 8
  25. 8
  26. 8
  27. 7
  28. 7
  29. 7
  30. 7
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. 6
  36. 6
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. i take it english isnt your 1st language? in·va·sion inˈvāZHən/ noun an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force. "the Allied invasion of Normandy" synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover; More an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity. "stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans" synonyms: influx, inundation, flood, rush, torrent, deluge, avalanche, juggernaut "an invasion of tourists" an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain. "random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy" in·cur·sion inˈkərZHən/ noun an invasion or attack, especially a sudden or brief one. "incursions into enemy territory" synonyms: attack on, assault on, raid on, invasion of, storming of, overrunning of, foray into, blitz on, sortie into, sally into/against, advance on/into, push into, thrust into, infiltration of "the Confederate incursion into Mexico" we had troops in korea when it was invaded BY THE NORTH, our troops were welcomed, we did not invade. utter fabrication. the only country that invaded south korea was north korea. 2 days after the north invaded the UN gave an ultimatum for their withdrawal and when they didnt authorized military action the balance of which was provided by the us. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjhsuzZ7ajUAhXHQSYKHW1YDkQQFghxMA4&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKorean_War&usg=AFQjCNH7EGT2_av94k6O26a9gLPHG0RVMw&sig2=Y3MZd4iKfTj1I-LACeT6VA https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjhsuzZ7ajUAhXHQSYKHW1YDkQQFghkMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.com%2Fthis-day-in-history%2Ftruman-orders-u-s-forces-to-korea-2&usg=AFQjCNHRKI80PM7MLk9_FMThnhQFE6HxVQ&sig2=a15ODJbr8lZHi0gwmpq0Ag suggest you start taking your meds and leave the fevered imaginary world your mind has created.
    4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242.  @Logan-Eastman  if you go to the soures he refers to youll see the proof ergo why he included them. plus you could hop on over to veritas and see plenty of hidden camera videos of plenty of voter fraud occurring or being discussed by democratic operatives. "Literally one credible source of evidence. Literally one credible source that confirms massive voter fraud exists. Hell, even one slightly dubious source. " i dont see the word "primary" in there. i checked twice. nice goalpost move when your original requirements were fulfilled. perhaps you should get a job with NFL field maintenance, then you could move the goalposts for a living. the whole point of a journalist is to collate primary sources so you dont have to. newsflash: im not a journalist. actually establishing a pattern of behavior is an excellent and much legally used as evidence of a crime. i never said you said mail in voter fraud didnt exist. stop trying to muddy the issue to hide the fact your position is weak. i would call 20% and the election called for to be redone pretty convincing, especially when you add it to all the other evidence of mail in voter fraud across the country. and i gave it to you. 20% is massive. i did. you impugn and ignore it because it destroys your narrative. i am indeed making assumptions based on the evidence of your commentary and sources you claim to find credible and not credible. and id wager im correct, call it a hunch. and so i did. and the gyrations of your mental gymnastics to disallow it in any way you can is highly entertaining. highly. i doubt it. i did. stop avoiding that it proves you wrong. better yet dont. i enjoy the salt lol. well, somebodys "truth" lol
    1
  243.  @Logan-Eastman  ie youre sorry you got caught moving the goalposts. theres a very big difference between sources and primary sources. i have no doubt as to which you originally meant as we both know. and i provided you with a source. ie a presentor of multiple sources which tend to be more credible for sampling a range of sources. i dont need to google it. i have sources at hand one of which i provided you when challenged to do so. one of which you have yet to provide a reason as to its lack of veracity other then "its a youtube vidoe" as if thats any sort of general disqualifier. as if any of this was in any way unpredictable lol. what? no love for yandex, ccsearch, swissocs, gibiru, onesearch, boardreader,givewater,ekoru,ecosia,info.com,searx???? perhaps you dont know those. oh well. a journalist IS a source. right, but not specifically because 20% of the mail in votes were potentially fraudulent. and 20% is MASSIVE! IT.MOST.CERTAINLY.MASSIVE.EVIDENCE.OF.VOTER.FRAUD.IN.US.ELECTIONS. AS.WELL.AS.BEING.SHADES.OF.THINGS.TO.COME.WITH.EXPANDED.MAIL.IN.VOTING. as if theres been time for an investigation into it lol. see? there you go moving those darn goalposts again. and now youre moving them to something that is unattainable in regards to the source i provided. im sure thats just a coincidence though. totally. I.ALREADY.DID. thats your job. ive satisfied myself as to the veracity of tims reporting via due diligence. its not my job to do YOUR due diligence. that, and you cant lead a biased horse to facts and make them drink of them. so youre saying that those are the only cases of voter fraud ever? in any cases 1000 is 1000 to many in this day and age.
    1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344.  @1239-d4s  if they do not have one its their own damn fault as theyre easy to obtain. my legally blind 90 year old grandma managed. maybe if they cant be bothered to acquire one, as easy as it is, maybe they shouldnt vote. yes, you should have to get a picture id to vote to prove you are whom you say you are. its quite easy and a non driver photo id is inexpensive, i believe my grandmothers cost $2.50 at the time. no, saying htey should have a picture id to prove they are whom they say they are to vote is not the lazy argument, making excuse for them not is, and is racist to boot. so yes, if you think minorities are too incompetent to be able to get a photo id as easy as it is, you are indeed racist because you have such low expectations of our fellow americans. you mean, that is the motivations you project upon republicans to fulfill your confirmation bias. its id requirements that keep our elections as relatively safe as they are. though this does not appear to be the case with the recent mail in balloting as numerous incidents of fraud and bureaucratic incompetence or malfeasance is showing. one entire election in new jersey is having to be redone due to 20% of the ballots being fraudulent or incorrect. 20%!!! id call that pretty massive!!! you are wrong, its kkk DEMOCRATS that used jim crow laws to disenfranchise minorities. i know you all like to project youre illegalities on republicans but this is demonstrably false. voting tests; KKK DEMOCRATS. poll taxes; KKK DEMOCRATS. see a pattern forming? thats a lie. whites are in the majority ergo white have the largest percentage of governmental ids. not that the bearers skin color has anything to do with it. i know you guys like to tie everything to skin color because youre so racist though. yet, your excuses and attitudes say otherwise. otherwise youd stop rationalizing lame, racist excuses for them. how is proving that you say you are whom you say "undemocratic" exactly (this should be interesting). irrelevant as proving you are whom you say you are is non partisan. no. wrong. republicans DO NOT want to disenfranchise any CITIZEN. its not about taking anyones legal right to vote. its about having a secure election. so you can keep your racist projections with your KKK cards. really? is that why so many people are fleeing democrat controlled crapholes for red states? uuummm were not a democray gruberite. we are a constitutional republic. and wanting election integrity is not subverting anything. wanting to cheat election security with fraud is. youre lunatic party isnt even trying to hide it anymore. they never will, because election security will always be a concern. the sooner your lunatic fringe party dissolves the better.
    1
  345.  @1239-d4s  you misspelled "it is very apparent i am unable to refute your argument." no, you didnt blatantly say it, but it is clearly evident via your "argument". what other reason is there then? why statistically? and every time ive seen minorities interviewed about the matter they indicated no issues getting ids and were incensed to think anyone would think them unable. yeah, i know. its because you dont understand how and you dont want me to embarrass you and point out what an infinitesimal (sound it out, and google it if you need to)percentage we are speaking of. as i said, i believe my grandmas no driver photo id was about $2.50. so the low income excuse doesnt cut it. well, at least i know how to spell "you" and use it in a sentence. just sayin. once again if you think minorities are too incompetent to be able to acquire a phot id YOU ARE RACIST because you have such low expectations of our fellow americans. yes, they should. you need to be able to prove you are whom you say you are when carrying out such an important civic duty as voting. the fact that you dont says how ok you are with cheating. and we all know why. because democrats cant win election without cheating. pretending a rationalization for not giving an argument is not an argument. ill be happy to repeat that over and over again until you comprehend it. and there you go playing semantic word games. no. there was no mythical "party switch" that is a lie. if its true it should be easy for you to provide an advertisement of a democrat party plank that the switchers brought with them and republicized as a republican party plank. ill wait (chirp, chirp[eternally conservative crickets chirping]). nope. they are not. they are still the conservative party that they were when they were formed in the decade before the civil war (you know, the war democrats cause when they got made we were going to take their slaves away). yes, that would be a nonsensical argument. as nonsensical as the mythical "party switch" lol. im not the racist saying minorities are too incompetent to acquire a voter id or obsessing about skin color statistics my racist friend. just sayin. once again ill say it since you seem slow. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY GRUBERITE. WE ARE NOW, AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. GO BACK AND RETAKE A CIVICS CLASS. AND TRY NOT BEING STONED THIS TIME. no. you see im not a racist who thinks minorities are too incompetent to get a voter id nor obsessing about skin color statistics. there is someone in this conversation that is though. and thats you my racist friend. so where did i ever say that? its just that the dems have made an artform out of it whereas the republicans are rank amateurs. you mean the leftist propaganda trying to project their racist past onto others? yeah, i skipped that propaganda. i studied real history. you should try it. actually it does. election integrity in no way subverts anything. in fact, quite the opposite. once again, go look whos fleeing what states to where lol. never mind, youll learn after the census when representational apportionment looses blue states legislative representatives. cant wait to sample you alls tears of unfathomable sadness lol. in what way? be specific (this should be interesting [btw still waiting on your mental gymnastics explaining what other reason then incompetence for your "argument" that voter id laws "disenfranchise" minority voters]) citizens absolutely should have a voice in the policies of our great nation. 100% ie" i have no counter to your argument."
    1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480.  @chaddisrud535  more like your misinterpretation of the words combined with your historically based delusions. the citizenry has the sovereignty as its the citizenry that selects the representatives doing the legislating. ergo its the citizenry setting the laws all must follow. the states and federal governments are constitutional republics (with some variation at state level of course). some things are voted on in a direct democratic manner, many things are not, but dictated by the will of the people with whom they select to represent them. direct democracies are one of the most oppressive forms of government (being the tyranny of the mob) which is why the founding fathers specifically avoided it. wrong. there is an inalienable right for person to defend themselves and the best means at this time are firearms (ie arms) on whose right the government is not allowed to infringe upon. no, the choice of tool is an individual right, not a collective right. you are correct that the federal government is specifically excluded from being allowed to infringe upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms. but, as case law has demonstrated. so are state and local governments where the 2nd amendment is involved. nope. the amendment was created specifically to allow the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical state by ensuring their rights of self defense were not infringed upon. oh, the 2a community does. in force. oh i agree completely, residents of say kentucky, should have no say in the affairs of kansas. and the same should hold true vice versa. sadly an ever growing and powerful federal government has trampled on this concept. you do realize tha same can be said of kansans with their votes for federal representatives subsequently shoving federal laws down other states throats as well, right? is that so hard either?
    1
  481. 1
  482.  @chaddisrud535  except theres no constitutional right to nudity. were not a democracy. were a constitutional republic. uncomfortable minorities can always move. theres a lot of options other than anarchy and democracy and not nescessarilly between those 2. luckily what they believe is irrelevant to my rights. they believe that because they have been propagandized by the anti gun lobby and have not explored the facts. luckily that is changing which is why theres such a high turnover in the anti gun lobby ranks. people tend to not like being lied to and emotionally manipulated. go figure. nope. im arguing that my right to own firearms is constitutionally protected, any infringement is unconstitutional, and the wishes of hoplophobes do not define my rights. well, heres a clue. i can decide myself what speed i drive regardless of what society decides. just like numerous criminals decide to break the laws every day. and no law on earth can stop that. only punish me and the real criminals after the fact. only if my right to drive in excess of 100 mph is constitutionally enshrined. nope. im going to argue that the constitution prohibits government from infringing on my right to keep an bear arms. my motivations for exercising my rights are irrelevant. tell that to the between 500,000-3,000,000 (according to the cdc) americans who defend themselves with a firearm per year. they probably hold a different opinion, not that thats in any way relevant to the exercising of their rights. nope. there is only one interpretation of the 2nd amendment. how can a collective keep AND bear a singular item? not to mention "THE PEOPLE" is the same individual "PEOPLE" found in other individual rights. and the writings of the framers make it crystal clear its an individual right. much like what exists today. and seeing how things are, its had to argue that they were wrong. and the only way to accomplish that outcome is by an individual right to keep and bear arms. so citizens would have the power to form militias as and where and for as long as they decided to. this is impossible without an individual right to keep and bear arms. yes it does. it chose not to challenge obviously unconstitutional laws beyond the original scope of the case. luckily many are now being addressed. may KEEP and BEAR an ARM not excluding a handgun.
    1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521.  @philjones5555  no i cant. but i do know with wheat for instance, with the new varieties added theyve an entire new growing season for it since my childhood. the "scientists" used to make doom and gloom "everyone will be starving by the year 2000" predictions. which didnt even come close to coming true despite the world population exceeding their predictions. because they did not take into account advances in agriculture. but i can say the amount of land taken over by solar, wind farms and housing developments is a mere fraction of the land under tillage. go drive out in the rural farmlands and see for yourself. and farmers have put more land under tillage in their own farms be reducing the number of fence rows and enlarging their fields into fewer, larger fields. dont know. if we do itll more likely mean we have less to export, than impact the amount of farming being done domestically. even if it is impacted, thatll just mean less of our food production will get exported. look im not saying there doesnt seem to be some kind of coordinated "attack' on food producers world wide. just that were not going to be starving any time soon here in this country, at least as far as food production is concerned. china and bill gates and the like might be buying up farmland willy nilly, but the chineses cant pack it up and take it home nor can the oligarchs prevent land from being farmed if theres a food crisis. were they to try such foolishness it would simply mean the land being taken from them. no army in the world has enough troops to occupy us farmlands. nor would it be tolerated if they try.
    1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1