Comments by "Oblithian" (@Oblithian) on "Nate The Lawyer" channel.

  1. To be objective, of all the CEOs and business magnets, his dealings are far from the most upstanding and 'honest'. Becoming president puts an interesting question into enforcement of laws.
    1
  2. To be fair you could easily not have one on your mind. But, you would then be admitting you were grossly unprepared and a terrible journalist. Also, we know 'journalists' these days just say whatever. *And then he just misrepresents what he said.
    1
  3. Family christmas?
    1
  4. Well Nate I do have to tell you where you are wrong today, but only partially. I have to agree with him that it was out of context because he wasn't confirming the initial assertion that Kamala was for x,y,z initiative as the ad implies. They were speaking in the context of quoting the ad. Now he did agree with the notion that It's not something he wants his money spent on. So if Kamala said that, and they instead took his quote "I don't want mybtax dollars spent on that!", that would be in the right context even if he were speaking in a hypothetical because in that case the hypothetical is true. I don't know what Kamala's actual position is on that, I wasn't paying attention to her campaign.
    1
  5. I don't know if either are particularly objectifying. I think that bar keeps getting lower. Her employer may have treated her like that. But the role is to look nice and present a briefcase, someone has to do it (per the show design). She could wear a suit but that's not particularly glamourous and not fitting with the theme. A woman who chooses to behave like that character isn't exactly objectification either, if we accept that 'slut-shaming' is wrong. Or if you assume a woman has agency which is like the Schrodinger's cat of feminism these days. (Rather, whatever is convenient to the argument being made). But based on her views, yes absolutely, the second role is as bad or worse.
    1
  6. She seems like a fame at any cost kind of person, and once you have climbed that latter where do you go? Social capital.
    1
  7. I hope not
    1
  8. "Our realities are different" "...but we need to be paid the same"
    1
  9. ...WTF is wrong with all these political folks? (DAs, mayors, governors) *Also, Trump is very annoying to watch, he doesn't really say anything of substance just complains and rambles while leveling vague allegations. If I were to attempt to regurgitate it: "They're doing something very very wong, something that everyone says is wrong. It's bad. They're going to be punished. Everyone says they're going to have to be punished. This thing has hurt a lot of people. It's worse than the things they're getting accused of, these poor people. it's a tragedy really. She profited tremendously. It's illegal, what she did is illegal. What a sad situation, it is."
    1
  10. DEI doesn't even support inclusion. Even caucasians aside, watch how they abhorrently attack asians when it comes to pushing for another group. Then watch them attack hispanics, Jews... It is completely unacceptable and these people are making a job of it.
    1
  11. Meanwhile I am here believing in a singular objective reality and thinking if anyone chooses not to, that's fine. I just disagree with forcing beliefs on others, just as people oppose forced religion or indoctrinating propaganda.
    1
  12. Society has been echoing the "don't risk a chilling effect" for so long. Pushed by the same cult that often abuses that ease for personal vandettas and to get ahead. I get it is an apalling and emotional thing. But we don't do the "oh no, the chilling effect." for framing people for murder. Objectively, the only way appropriate* punishment 'chills' anything, is to chill those who have less than just intentions. It shows that, if you falsely accuse someone you can be punished, especially if successful. But for you to be punished you would need to be proven guilty. So the chilling effect is... Don't lie.
    1
  13. I am not for private schools, but I know that your kid can hypothetically get a better education there (just because there are hypothetical exceptions). And that is the reality. But private schools are mostly just another barrier to entry for the wealthy. I am not saying they have no right to exist, but private schools typically still get money from the government, tax breaks, etc. I just think that if you are going to create this nook for a wealth based education gateway, especially in the US (where the public education system is on average quite inadequate), then no breaks, and they have to pay for EVERYTHING. It encourages more participation and interest in the public schools, it diverts needed funds to the public schools... etc. It's not a solution (there are a lot of things needing fixing) it is just a better approach. But my ultimate opinion is that we should be funding better digital learning because then you ALWAYS get the best lesson, not just left to chance if you have a bad teacher. You will still need in person classes for some things, but you can drop half the teachers who can't be bothered to take their job seriously anyway.
    1
  14. "have you seen the female athletes?" ...have you asked the female athletes? Some may be on board before they try expecting to win, after they try... they don't feel so eager. The exact same happens when they demand to compete with men without handicaps.
    1
  15. Runkle of the Bailey thought it was a bit ridiculous. But if it works there...
    1
  16. Honestly... The overcorrection at the time making him a victim of undue scrutiny, may make the racism suit justified. It's not so much racism against the clerk, but racism in favour of the attacker.
    1
  17. Everyone is 'controversial', even martin Luther King Jr. apparently. During the BLM protests and resulting riots, BLM supporters were saying all kinds of things to denounce him. Everyone has differing opinions, so someone is always opposed, then or now. Especially every president, as there were always other individuals they personally wanted. If you go down this road, history will be banned.
    1
  18.  @lepuuttelu  Yeah the round power is a pretty bs argument lol unless they're in a building, behind cover, or armoured.
    1
  19. I doubt they are 2, 2year olds spend most of their time playing on the floor, not seated at tables.
    1
  20. No, every human humouring this unsportsmanlike decision to allow unfair competition is hurting themselves by degrading their own intelligence and morality.
    1
  21. I mean, legally it might be one way or the other, but I feel like bringing a deadly weapon and escalating the situation rather than a non-lethal but effective deterrent, or not showing up at all is, at least ethically dubious regardless of the outcome.
    1
  22. Ok seeing the video you have to consider the situation. There was an active riot, where people were known to be killed and seriously injured, that alone should be considered an iminate threat. But he chose to be there for 'allegedly' the defense of others. Now he was being chased by a violent mob, several of whom were armed, and there was no way of knowing of the others were also. It doesn't matter if in a split second they were facing a different direction they were still a threat and if he was not aggressive he would have to risk likely harm or death to discover that. After firing his weapon, an angry mob tends to feel even more justified in an attack. The attempt to disarm him after such violence could only be interpreted by a reasonable person in that situation, to be further threat (especially if that weapon would then be used against themself). But regardless, the situation, until resolved was an ongoing threat, if he needed to fire his gun to keep it so that he can prevent being killed by another armed individual. Note he didn't (despite the threat) fire on the person with a blunt instrument, or the man whose hands were in the air. (Also note the photo or convenient still) was of the man in the tan shorts did not drop his weapon or keep his hands up. I don't know if he had fired at him previously, that would be important. He also shot at his arm (perhaps in an intent to disarm, depending on testimony). 17:41 the frame where he is getting behind Rittenhouse, He has regained a firing grip and appears to have his finger on the trigger.
    1
  23. But in my country, merely having a gun out can be considered assault with a deadly weapon, so it makes the situation a bit more convoluted, were the attackers defending themselves? We need more than just the video, we need the prior and preceding events.
    1
  24.  @kevinrobinson5654  agreed.
    1
  25. Wow, we went through this whole stupid song amd dance just to get back to the same conclusion as years ago when the woman who was born male won at sprinting.
    1
  26. I like the idea of a citizen petitioned grand jury assuming the jury is still unbiased, because there are many situations where persuing a lawsuit may be inconvenient to some, but still a valid case. But I would not like to produce a situation where you create a jury of public opinion, and perhaps a prejudiced one through the petitioning process. Especially in cases like this where it is difficult to examine objectively without blurring into emotionality.
    1
  27. Was she getting paid to do things or paid because she did things?
    1
  28. Let alone, What about literally every other group of people? *Yes Bill Maher addressed that.
    1
  29. ...Having a name and being a pioneer does not inherently mean you deserve all the money. Imagine if I started a business that sold laptops in the 1980s. Do I deserve apple money, just because I did the same sort of work? Maybe even better work in some respects, but it didn't sell. It may be deserving of respect but there are fundamental differences. Are you the absolute best as a pioneer since there are few options to choose from? Is your league attracting an audience, let alone an audience on par with other established brands? It is hard work and I hope they were paid appropriately for their contributions, but that's not what the women's team was arguing for. The women's team wanted money for the current women, playing on the backs of the former women's successes and to some extent the sport's popularity developed from the men's leagues. This is just unsporting greed. It isn't exclusive to women, or soccer, or not the women's team. But the concept that they are freedom fighters is just a load of BS. (Again, not to say the women have never faced any BS they shouldn't have, but in this current issue which is the topic they massively prefaced to build a false pedestal).
    1
  30. I bet she's tired of joint custody and wants out. Or she did it and is now trying to get out ahead of him. If it's true though... Either way just bringing it up now as a form of countersuit, doesn't put her in the best light.
    1
  31. More People also come to see your performances because you are in it not Tom Cruise, and your performances all massively outpace his in terms of revenue. And the roles you go for are more competitive, and require much higher skill.
    1
  32. I have encountered people like that IRL, without any video cameras. They are super annoying.
    1
  33. I am incredulous.
    1
  34. Why does this person look familiar? Were they up for a different crime? Or just looks like the one school firearms incident person.
    1
  35. I contest this fact.
    1
  36. I think the parties need higher standards for running in primaries.
    1
  37. Settles! This is BS it should have been dismissed.
    1
  38. If the women who many of which have or currently take performance enhancing drugs or hormones are losing, that says something.
    1
  39. I prefer this style, I come out of it feeling I have a better understanding of the situation and the law. And your commentary has much more weight when you present the foundational information.
    1
  40. I was going to make a comment entirely out of F's to emulate the sound I made out of frustration 6 seconds in. But then it would just be flagged and hidden.
    1
  41. Of course it does, they haven't been honest so far.
    1
  42. If done right, it's about damn time.
    1
  43. Her conscience?
    1
  44. What if a senior at the FBI is delaying the Dalton situation due to being a member of the cult of feminism (or other) and is sympathetic to her for reason of classification.
    1
  45. Why make such a false claim? (The State)
    1
  46.  @TallMichelleWithTheLongHair  sometimes
    1
  47. I think the country would be much better off with Arnold Schwarzenegger as President. ... Assuming the age hasn't become an issue.
    1
  48. People know bud as "sh!t beer", you have to sell it as "sh!t beer" to build a lasting market. People aren't suddenly going to enjoy it, unless they change the product not the label.
    1
  49. What's next coworkers with seniority is a crime!? This is absurd and should be a violation of basic reproductive rights.
    1
  50. Well, yeah no one is going to vote for her over other candidates. Why she even thought she could be president.... It's very narcissistic. Many politicians are, but they either have experience in government or even Trump (regardless of if you dislike him) had some experience with managing organizations. Meghan has experience acting and being subversive. Let alone the conflict of interest between states. Imagine if succession came up, you have the president being the queen of England. Even as it stands, a 'duchess' leading the 'free world'? Right...
    1