Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "Styxhexenhammer666" channel.

  1. Key point: Crowder would be responsible for all the production costs of the show, including staff and if there were any reductions, Crowder would still have to cover these staff costs. This initial offer was insulting.
    886
  2. Literally CONFESSED to MURDER and is still granted bail?????? That's just insane.
    428
  3. He's not a christian, he's a communist infiltrator. You can't be a christian and a communist - or support communism. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand the ideological framework of either.
    397
  4. Hope Not Hate are Communists. Nothing more to say.
    133
  5. It's almost like E-Corp is real and Mr Robot was a documentary...
    87
  6. Jonny Rotten is a conservative. The Sex Pistols came into being during a Labour (Socialist) government. Claims to the contrary are Leftist propaganda.
    80
  7. Hamas makes no apologies for killing civilians. They target civilians. This is utterly unforgivable. You can criticise Israel, but don't ever downplay the barbarity of Hamas.
    49
  8. SCOTUS should definitely take this and squash it, because it needs to be squashed. Inaction is not the right course here. This BS is causing and exacerbating political instability.
    40
  9.  @ennuiblue4295  People with children are more likely to think past the next election cycle. Even if you've come from a large family, you don't understand what it's like to be a parent. It changes you. It's an insult BECAUSE there are many globalist world leaders who've done an empirically bad job, which, in turn, has created long-term problems that OTHER people's children must suffer. People know they have no skin in the game and they resent it.
    30
  10. No, this is the Queen cleaning-house. She isn't stupid and is making sure that everyone knows that SHE believes he's guilty.
    24
  11. No, they should visit the same thing onto everyone involved, because, clearly, they won't be charged 😡
    23
  12. Giving material support to an enemy you are at war with has a name: treason.
    22
  13. *abusive relationship. Corrected for you ;) No deal is ONLY bad for the EU. For us, it will merely be disruptive.
    21
  14. Agreed. Most important point is self-determination. Argentina taking over the Falklands would require ignoring the right to settle-determination, which is supposed to be a core part of the UN charter.
    20
  15. ​ @19822andy  Define "absolutely disastrous". Major cities will suffer months of aerial bombardment? Ships bringing goods to UK will be sunk by submarines? Businesses in the UK are ready for a no-deal - not that you'd know it from the propaganda you get from the BBC. 1. We ALREADY get huge amounts of food from outside the EU - most of the oranges I buy are from South Africa or Israel (depending on time of year and which supermarket I go to). I know that a major UK supermarket has already got contingency to buy 100% of its veg from North Africa, if the EU started to play silly buggers (something which would only hurt EU farmers; how long would that last?). 2. The UK government is in control of customs checks - if there was a "shortage" of something critical, like medicines, then the government could charter a plane - or send the ruddy RAF - over to the continent to pick up whatever was required and just wave it through. Sure, there may be some delays and additional costs, but ANY change is going to incur these - should the Irish not have become independent? The Indians? The South Africans? No, life would go on with very little or no disruption for people like you and me BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MUCH MONEY TO BE MADE on both sides of the channel and THAT is what they're afraid of; they're afraid that business people, who're good at making money, will find ways to make Britain successful - of making money - outside the EU. And just as a historical note, Napoleon tried to blockade the UK. He failed, because the blockade was bad for business. https://www.britannica.com/event/Continental-System The ONLY people it will be "absolutely disastrous" for are our politicians, as they'll no longer have the EXCUSE that "the EU made us do it".
    17
  16. Hear, hear!
    16
  17.  @PvtFlowers  That's what they want.
    16
  18. "Rewind", hmm... "He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past."
    12
  19. Agreed. Events have overtaken Parliament; they have MASSIVELY over-played their hand. When the election comes, it will be a blood-bath and ALL the nonsense will simply be undone - they used emergency legislation to block us, Boris can use emergency legislation to unblock it...
    12
  20. Imagine LENDING half a million to someone doing a useless degree and then being surprised when they can't pay it back...
    12
  21. "We want a People's Vote”... But we're going vote AGAINST holding a general election...
    11
  22. "'A little bit of censorship' is, intellectually, right up there with 'a little bit pregnant.'" Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
    10
  23. They can't stop Trump from running. The Constitution defines who can run. They can only imprach him.
    9
  24. ​ @EmperorHelix  He's going to try to "primary" him - replace him on the Republican ticket before the election, so he can run as the official Republican candidate. (Explaination for non-Americans.)
    9
  25. 😂 best comment!
    9
  26. ​ @scootergrant8683  He's not just taking the side-quests, he's creating his own. 😂
    9
  27. He spends a lot of time in Holland, so they'll flag him as a foreign threat 🤣
    8
  28. Underrated comment.
    8
  29.  @nobodynotme4840  There cannot be enough likes for this comment! 😁
    8
  30.  @michaelscott-joynt3215  Morally, I strongly disagree with you. "They're an elected politician" should NOT grant immunity against a charge of treason/sedition/terrorism. If an any politician is inciting - or even just encouraging - violence and/or intimidation, against the politicians on the other side, something that is anathema to the democratic process, then they should be dealt with in just the same way that an unelected individual would. It's called "equality before the law". It is precisely because "there are no kings" that this is the case. Even the Queen is subject to the law (though, she can't commit treason against herself, obviously 🤣). Remember: we executed a King to prove this principle. If it is the case that they cannot be held to account, legally, for what they say and do, when what they say and do would see you or I in prison, THAT is corruption. THAT is tyrannical. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression that, *Constitutionally*, not just morally, any action taken against tyranny is justified.
    8
  31. "Believe in something even if it means burning everything to the ground."
    8
  32. 10 USC 246: Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Every 17 year-old male should own a rifle which uses the same calibre of ammunition as the US military. 16 year-olds should be practicing with said firearm so that they are ready to fulfil their duty as a member of the militia as soon as they turn 17. In short: banning 16 year-olds from owning AR-15s is unconstitutional.
    7
  33.  @Sixstringman  Yep.
    6
  34. ​@Joris Van Aecken Best argument; you can go back to any point in history and justify almost anything. Israel was attacked in a war of aggression. They decided that the Golan would prevent that happening / make it easier to defend against it in the future, so kept hold of it. If Syria hadn't attacked, they'd still have the Golan. Same goes for Spain and Gibraltar - they declared war on Britain and lost, so Britain took Gibraltar... which, incidentally, has been British for over 300 years now, but was Spanish for only 205. Lesson: If you start a war, you better win because if you don't, the defender may take your shit - and you won't be able to stop them.
    6
  35. Actually, I am surprised - hacking any US govt system is practically suicidal. Won't surprise me if she gets away with it though ☺️
    6
  36.  @user-yh8gx9ng4u  But none of them work with you, obviously. Most of the Poles I come across are all in favour of us leaving...
    5
  37.  tignesboy  ROFL! This, so much, this!
    5
  38.  @FuckYouTubeTheySuck  That's an interesting interpretation. I would say that the government NOT being able to print unlimited money; that that can ONLY do the things that they can legitimately convince people to pay for; that they cannot borrow against future generations would be a far BETTER check on government excess than the current system. The current system has - as a matter of fact - enabled government to bribe the people with their own money, partly, because government has the power to render currency worthless. Worse, it enables an independent, unaccountable entity, to do the same; the Fed Reserve is NOT a part of the government.
    5
  39. 😂
    5
  40.    We've executed admirals and a king... But never a politician or judge. Guess which groups are the problem today?
    5
  41.  JSENNER83  Not overwhelmingly, but by enough. The key point is that if we had an election NOW, we would find out who is right: people like me who believe there is now more support for Brexit or the others who believe the opposite. The Conservatives have confidence in the former and are willing to put themselves into the hands of the electorate to find out. Why don't the others? Why don't they trust the people? We both know the answer to that question.
    5
  42. Amen to that! Let's hope the Musk/Adams Law of The Simulation holds true - the most entertaining outcome is the one we get 😊
    5
  43.  @HarryFlashmanVC  I said conservative, not Conservative. Traditional values, small government. If you think Rotten coming out for Trump is "odd", you haven't been listening.
    5
  44.  @mostlycensored7668  🤣🤣🤣
    4
  45.  King Crimson  Yeah, all fine, until someone builds a quantum computer and it becomes defunct overnight... Real, physical, tangible things are the only way forwards. Don't care if it's gold, grain, electricity stored in batteries, but as soon as the unit of exchange is disconnected from physical goods, you've put Capitalism into a death spiral... Like Communism, it's a long, drawn-out death spiral, but it seems pretty obvious that's where we are... Since Breton Woods, we've had shocks and crises, which your always going to have, but when each one is worse than the previous and the answer is always "more if what got us here"... Well, isn't that what the Communists say?
    4
  46.  @unnaturalatrophy8443  No, no I haven't. Boring's response makes it perfectly clear that this is the arrangement they had in mind. This is the sort of offer you give to someone just starting out, when you're taking a big risk in terms of the uncertainty. But when you're dealing with an established star, you don't treat them that way. You just don't. I think that what Crowder was REALLY after was a partnership, someone who treated him with the respect he deserves, not just some nameless "talent". What Boring did was make it personal - Crowder didn't name DW, but Boring insulted Steven by saying he's "not self-made", which is just completely wrong.
    4
  47.  @Longshanks1690  True, but it changes the calculus. If it was just Steven getting the 50 mil, then these penalties don't really matter, but it isn't just Steven. Tim is wrong - Crowder has run a business; he HAS employees. For all his faults, Crowder does give the impression that he generally gives a crap about the people he is RESPONSIBLE for.
    4
  48.  @feddyvonwigglestein3481  I make in a day more than most people make in a week (and many make in a month). If you offered me half of that, I would be insulted, because I know I'm more valuable and that YOU ARE TRYING TO EXPLOIT ME.
    4
  49.  @nottoday3666  How do you know? Do you know his current running costs? Headcount? What it would cost in terms of people and equipment to grow and improve production quality? He could very easily spend $1,000,000 in server and network hardware without even trying. (This is not as ridiculous as it may sound, given that an IT outage could cripple him financially.) And that's before you hire someone good to look after it (which would cost you in the region of $200,000 x2)
    4
  50.  @zanitzeuken  Amen to this! I don't care who you are, you don't make an offer like this to someone you consider a friend. This "conversation starter" said "we want none of the risk and all of the reward", rather than something that spreads risk and reward equally.
    4