Comments by "Perhaps" (@NoEgg4u) on "TheDC Shorts" channel.

  1. 2000
  2. 1000
  3. 610
  4. 276
  5. 92
  6. 87
  7. 77
  8. 54
  9. 41
  10. 40
  11. 38
  12. 37
  13. 32
  14. 28
  15. 27
  16. 25
  17. 23
  18. 20
  19. 19
  20. 18
  21. 18
  22. 17
  23. 16
  24. 16
  25. 15
  26. 15
  27. 14
  28. 12
  29. 12
  30. 11
  31. 11
  32. 11
  33. 11
  34. 11
  35. 10
  36. 9
  37. 8
  38. 8
  39. 8
  40. 7
  41. 7
  42. @1:26 "Let 'em speak." Did you catch that disgusting action by that school board member? Here is what she did: She finds the speaker's words to be distasteful, but she has to let him speak. But when the audience cheers him on, she is boiling inside. She can't stand him being applauded. So she interrupts him, and tries to stop the applause. And what is so deceitful is her choice of words. It is like someone interrupting you by saying "I'm not interrupting you", when you try to speak. She says "Let 'em speak", to stop the applause that infuriates her, and she tries to take the wind out of his sails; tries to make him lose his tempo. She tried early on, @0:23, with "Address the board" interruption. He was addressing the board. She knew where he was going (we all knew where he was going). None of us would have interrupted him with "Address the board". She knew he was laying down the foundation for his admonishment of the school board members. So she tries to interrupt him, implying that he was not addressing the school board members. Of course he was addressing the school board members. Everything he said pertained to his country, his family, and how those school board members are trying to usurp his role as a father and the role of our constitutional republic. Everything he said was for the ears of the school board members (and she interrupts him with "Address the board"). Radical leftists do this all the time. They see you on a roll, and so they interrupt you, seemingly innocently. But there is nothing innocent about it. They do so to break your stride. That school board member (that repeatedly tried to interrupt that father) is a radical leftist degenerate. That father knew the score. He ignored her. He kept his pace. He drove home his points. That he ignored her, likely angered her all the more.
    7
  43. 7
  44. 7
  45. 7
  46. 7
  47. 7
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 6
  51. 6
  52. 6
  53. 6
  54. 6
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. 5
  58. 5
  59. 5
  60. 5
  61. 5
  62. 5
  63. 5
  64. 5
  65. 5
  66. 5
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. @2:48 "... legal asylees are not charged with any crime" She is correct. She is also a crafty misdirector of the point of the dialog. When people show up at your door, how do you know who is a "legal asylee"? Yes, the ones that are really seeking asylum (not just making it up), and satisfy our country's laws (as passed by congress) insomuch as they are deemed to truly be "legal asyleees", then they are not breaking our law. Very few quality. Each and every border crosser that enters, but not at a port of entry, is by law not a "legal asylee". Even the border crossers that enter at a port of entry are not "legal asylees", with few exceptions. To put it another way, AOC is saying that people that do legal things are not breaking the law (implying that every border crosser is doing a legal thing) Any person in our country that has not broken a law is not a law breaker. So for AOC to say that "legal asylees" (also known as those that are complying with our law) are not law breakers is, "duh", true. Let's build on AOC's logic: I drive. I do not break the law when I drive. Ergo, I am a legal driver. That does not mean that every person that drives does not break motor vehicle law. I use my telephone. I do not use it to break any laws. Ergo, I am a legal telephone user. That does not mean that all telephone users do not use their telephone for an illegal act. AOC attempted to define every single border crosser as a legal border crosser (calling them all "legal asylees"). Yet they are not all legal border crossers. She makes a true statement, but in a way that misdirects the truth. She is despicable.
    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. 1) Both of them should be arrested. The driver, for being intoxicated. The passenger, for obstructing the officers during a traffic stop. After she got out of the car the second time, the officer should have warned her that if she gets out, again, she will be arrested. After being arrested, and putting her in hand-cuffs, in the police vehicle, the level of drama would have gone down. She could sit in the police car and scream all she want. At least the officers could focus on the driver, without having to worry about the passenger. The officers cannot let down their guard when someone at the scene is out of control. And, yes, that passenger was out of control. When the police tell you to stay in the vehicle, and you repeatedly refuse to stay in the vehicle, then you are out of control. She did not throw punches. But when someone refuses to follow police orders, the police have to assume that the person is dangerous, even if they are in a bikini. 2) Both of them (especially the passenger) are in for a life of sorrow. If they do not use their looks, now, to make themselves millionaires (and hire someone to handle their finances), then they will be on public assistance by the time they are 30 years old. No man is going to put up with their crap, once their looks are gone. And as far as looks go, they are average (maybe a bit higher than average). They are in decent shape, due to their age and natural metabolism. 100% certain that they will be obese by the time they are 35. Combine that with having no respect for themselves or others, and they are done. Right now, boyfriends put up with them for pump and dump. As their looks wane, they will wake up to the reality that everyone that pretended to like them, did so due to their physical attributes. 3) in approximately 10 years (or less), when their youth can no longer save them, they will blame the world for their despair. Nothing will be their fault. Nothing will be their life choices. If others are to blame, it is big tech and media outlets for encouraging them to act as they do. But ultimately, it is their own fault. The fun and games have a few years remaining, and they do not know it. If they ever come to realize that they never grew up and never chose to act responsibly, it will be too late.
    3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. Even yahoo's apology is not an apology. Hunter Walker's tweet reads: "We have passed South Korea in the number of tests conducted per capita. I misread the mobile version of this chart and am sorry about that @realDonaldTrump." So Hunter is sorry about misreading his chart, when he should be sorry about leveling false charges at the President of the United States. But yahoo's apology / non-apology does not end there. They cannot make an apology that is simply an apology. Like children, they must tie it to a type of "Yeah, but I was right that the sky is blue" remark, which is why Hunter Walker's tweet continued with: "Our infection rate is far higher though as I noted." The infection rate that yahoo should be focusing on is the number of people at yahoo with Trump Derangement Syndrome. An apology is not about the part that you got right. An apology is about the part that you got wrong. When you wrong someone, you should apologize, and leave it at that. But yahoo showed their hand. They showed that they must find a way to antagonize the President of the United States, even while issuing an apology. yahoo did not apologize to the President. yahoo did not apologize to its viewers. yahoo did not apologize to the people of the United States of America. yahoo made an excuse for why they got their accusation wrong, and married it to yet another accusation. yahoo is sorry about only two things: 1) They got caught with BS. 2) They failed at their attempt to embarrass the President of the United States. yahoo is a keeper and enabler of the swamp.
    1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. The school board members, to whom the students are reporting outrageous issues, are all sitting there and loving every second of the complaints. Why? It is those school board members that hate America, hate white people (hate themselves if they themselves are white), hate capitalism, hate free speech, etc. So when these students report on the status of what is going on in the schools, the school board members are gleeful inside, knowing that their efforts to tear down America's foundation, via brainwashing young minds, is in full motion in the school. This is somewhat analogous to innocent, political prisoners reporting on what is going on in the prisons to the people that put them into the prisons. Everything that the students are reporting are due to the policies put in place by the people that the students are complaining to (the school board members). Please do not assume that now, since the students are reporting what is happening, that the school board members will take action. The school board members put this into action, and this is merely confirmation that their plan is already in action. These videos need to include the names of the board members, the title of the board members, the photos of the board members, and the locations of the school districts that the board members represent. Without the above information, all we have are students complaining to faceless, nameless, anonymous people. The People do not know who to vote out of office, when The People do not know who those people are. For some reason, conservatives give cover to the very people that need the light of day shined on them. We need to have these public, taxpayer funded, political board members exposed, asked questioned, on camera, by conservative media. We already know what is going on in the schools. We need to know the specific people that are making it happen. Without knowing who they are, not much well get done. They need to be voted out. But that will not happen if we do not know who they are. Thank you.
    1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. Those robots should be illegal (perhaps they are?). Here's why: 1) Motor vehicles are not allowed to be driven on sidewalks. If you were to create a replica of that robot (but your replica is not a robot). And you controlled your replica by sitting on it and driving it on the sidewalk, the police would stop you, and might ticket you. But somehow when it can be driven on a sidewalk without a driver, then it is allowed? It is absurd. And as we have seen, it knocks things over. 2) Sidewalks (and the streets) are paid for by the tax dollars of We The People. Companies pay, separately for their office space and for their storage space and for their assembly space, etc. If you own a company, you pay for the property on which you are using space. Now we have companies using public sidewalks and public roads (think about driverless cars). So companies with huge resources can build an army of robots to go all over town (every town), and cause congestion, and they pay zero for using all of the public space? What happens when, for example, Home Depot creates robot trucks that go around selling supplies everywhere? And McDonalds goes around with automated trucks selling meals, etc. How many thousands of automated motor vehicles should We The People allow to roam our public sidewalks and our public streets, for free? Up until now, every vehicle had a driver. So that keeps big companies from abusing the public space (because for each motor vehicle, there was a human in the vehicle that was controlling the vehicle). But when huge companies can just build endless robots to clog our public sidewalks and public streets, and they pay zero taxes for using all of that public space, it is illegal. Folks, we are seeing the earliest stages of what will turn into a wave of congestion. If this is not stopped, then in years to come, big companies will have armies of these robots all over the place. And it will quickly get worse, as the robots are built in mass, lowering their cost. Would you be allowed to buy or build a robot, and have it make deliveries for you, or advertise for you? 3) Get ready for free advertising from the robots. No longer will big companies need to pay for billboards, or street signs, etc. They will build truck size robots that roam the streets, nagging the public to buy their products and services. You might be sitting in a park, relaxing, when along comes a robot to pester you. And a year later, 5 robots will roll in to pester you. It will come to that, if we turn a blind eye to this pestilence. It might seem interesting or exciting to see these robots today. But like a friend that is fun to be with, if you have to live with them, they get on your nerves. When these robots show up anywhere and everywhere, in mass, the interesting and exciting aspect will be replaced with anger and frustration. And since these robots will be owned by big companies, and those big companies pay-off law makers, get ready for big penalties for interfering with the operation of the robots. This is going to turn into a huge mess. And like any disease, catching it early, and eradicating it before it grows roots, is very important.
    1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. @1:56 "...former employees who ran his (Biden's) office, that there was never any record of this (Biden sexually assaulting women). There was never any record." Pelosi just used crafty used-car sale's talk that showed her hand. "record"? That is a legal term. So Biden's own office has no record of Biden sexually assaulting a woman is what Pelosi just said. @2:04 "...and that nobody (from Biden's office) ever came forward, or nobody ever came forward to say something about it..." So that is Pelosi's new standard? That someone else in Biden's office is supposed to report the (then) Senator, on behalf of the person that was sexually assaulted? Note that Pelosi did not say that nobody from Biden's office knew about it or talked about it. She said that they never came forward -- meaning that they never made an official report for the record. The way that Pelosi crafted her statements goes to the truth of the matter. She knows that Biden is guilty, and she knows that Biden's (then) staffers know what he did. So rather than saying: "No one has ever heard about this until now. Not any of Biden's staffers, not anyone from his friends, etc. Nobody. Zero. Zilch. Absolutely no one heard about this until now". But no. Pelosi uses legal terms, and she does so in a way that makes it sound like she literally means nobody ever heard of Biden's sexual assault. So technically she is being truthful, that no "record" (no government documented record) exists. But that is not the same as "No one knew about it", and Pelosi is taking advantage of a complicit media that she knows will not drill into her misleading remarks.
    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. 1
  243. 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