Comments by "Perhaps" (@NoEgg4u) on "Prime Time with Alex Stein" channel.

If that was said about Barack Obama, you can bet that they would all have something to say. They would all be condemning that statement -- and correctly so. Alex, I suspect that those officers were given instructions to not comment on that reprehensible statement. With the above in mind... the next time they refuse to comment, ask them if they were given orders forbidding them to comment.
199
He sits when he pees. Just one of many great lines in that act.
96
@0:12, when that guy turned around, I nearly fell off my chair.
34
Two words: Guilty as charged.
18
Yes, support the police. That, however, is different than blindly supporting every police officer. The police swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. When a police officer breaches his oath, then do not support that police officer, in that regard. Police officers are held to a higher standard, because they are the ones that We The People entrust to protect and maintain our freedom. So when a police officer dishonors his oath, and sullies our Constitution, that must not go uncontested. Their oath to our Constitution has to be enforced. Most law officers do not know anything about our Constitution. They could not tell you what our Bill Of Rights is. They swear an oath to uphold that which they know nothing (or nearly nothing) about. They raise their hand and swear to a fart in the wind, as far as their oath has any meaning to them. All law officers should be given a quarterly quiz, where they are asked 3 questions about our Constitution (our Bill Of Rights should be the main focus). And the questions need not get into the weeds. A passing grade would be 2 out of 3 correct answers. If they fail the test twice in a row, they are put on suspension. If they fail 3 times in a row, they are fired. Additionally, all law officers should be required to repeat their oath to our Constitution, each time the take the quiz. That will connect the dots, making it clear as to the importance of, and the purpose of, them taking their oath.
14
Two words: Alex's Bonus Hole.
13
Two words: Tuck friendly construction.
13
Today, I turned my light on and off. I also flushed my toilet. That makes me an electrician and a plumber. I also took a ride in a car, which officially makes me a passenger. Next, I am planning on tackling medicine, when I will take an aspirin. The wisdom and perseverance of those women that sat there and were launched into the sky, making them astronauts, the likes of which we have not seen since Neil Armstrong, is as heroic as the life of Anne Frank.
12
Alex, she does not know who the Hamburglar is (or was). She was not born, yet.
8
Two words: An amazing performance.
8
Two words: New abortion law.
7
@JohnA-bear I went with quarterly exams, and not so strenuous as to mimic passing a bar exam. My reason is that most law officers are well intentioned, but will fail if we make the exams too difficult. The goal should be for the law officers to be reminded, on a regular basis, to uphold their Constitutional oath, and to know more than the basics about our Constitution. They do not need to be Constitutional scholars. But they should know enough to not trample on our rights, and not abuse their authority. There are folks that perform First Amendment audits, and too often the police care called, and the police immediately defend the people that made the call. For example, a First Amendment auditor would have a video camera recording as they walk around the lobby of a post office, or of a public library, or the public sidewalk adjacent to a financial institution, etc. And sometimes the police trespass the auditor from public property. Then the auditor sues, and gets a handsome financial settlement. And only then are those police officers given training, after the fact. Rather than those police officers immediately telling the person that called that no crime is being committed, and anyone is allowed to record in a public lobby, the police get it wrong. So they have no understanding of basic rights. But they are trying to do the right thing. Ergo, they need a quarterly exam, just enough to keep them on their toes and understand that their oath is for a reason. But not so much to stress them out if the exams are too difficult. When law officers have a better understanding of our Constitution, it will make their jobs easier, conflicts will be easily settled, the officers will have more confidence, innocent people will neither have their rights violated no be falsely arrested, and government attorneys will not have to deal with as many lawsuits pertaining to all of the above. It is a win for everyone.
5
Two words: Eight simple steps.
5
Alex, you should have told him, at the end, who you are -- using humor, to not upset him.
4
@3:47 -- I tuned in to hear Brian Wellington.
4
@2:57 "They draw, with their chalk..." They deface public property. If the police enforced the law, they would all be fined. It is illegal to deface public property. No one is allowed to use sidewalks, or any other public property, for their canvas.
4
The police work for We The People. The police are not permitted to take orders from someone, just because they are behind a dais. The police do not take orders from city council members. If no laws are being broken, then the police have no cause to get involved. In fact, the involvement of the police should be to tell the city council members that this is a public forum, and that both the city council members and the police took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The police should ask the city council members for the statute that gives the city council members cause to remove a citizen from exercising his Constitutional right to speak. Keep in mind that city council members do not have the authority to overturn our Constitution. Any rules that the city council members enact, that involve the public, must comply with our Constitution. City council members have no authority, whatsoever, to deny constitutional rights to anyone. City council members are free to agree to rules for themselves. But they are not allowed to make rules that deny the public their Constitutional rights. Shame on the police for blindly doing the bidding of tyrannical city council members.
3
Two words: Math is racist.
3
Alex, they cared so much, that they were chatting with each other (@1:52), as you were speaking. And the woman that claimed that she was offended by your big booty comment, well... she then used the four letter word that ends in "hit". And clearly she did not care about our suffering veterans, because she focused entirely on your four second big booty comment, as if you did not spend 2 minutes and 56 seconds talking about our suffering veterans.
3
@3:18 -- We are looking at the results of the public education system, sitting there, unable to explain anything. Alex, you should have asked them "How many dimes are in a dollar?" Or, "How many minutes are in a quarter of an hour?" Or, "What state is Utah in?" Or, "What continent are we on?" Or, "If you were born 10 years ago, how old would you be today?" Etc. They would likely get all of them wrong. Either that, or they would refuse to answer, because they would get all of them wrong.
1
Goodbye: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj8nJQ7kMMY
1
Two words: Illegals for Trump.
1
@5:11 -- I tuned in to hear the "Consent" agenda.
1
@6:15 "I'm allowed to protest here, too". Alex, the people putting their hands on you, and blocking you, are breaking the law. Ergo, they are not protesters. Protesting is a constitutional protected right. Assaulting people is not protesting. What's next? Bank robbery as a protest? Those people that put their hands on you, or threw coffee on you (or your colleagues), are not protesters. They might have initially been protesters. But as soon as they commit a crime, they cease being a protester. Never call criminal activity "protesting". Calling criminal activity "protesting" implies a right to engage in criminal activity. Blocking public roads, or blocking any public access, or causing a disturbance, or putting their hands on you, is all illegal -- all are criminal offenses. None of those criminals (who engaged in those illegal acts) were protesters.
1
@jackson505 Quote: "Your going to cry about THAT and call it assault. 😅 You have such a victim complex." Leave it to a triggered leftist to assert crying, when they are the one that is crying. As to your bizarre victim complex assertion, note that I was not in the video or at that event. Ergo, I cannot be a victim of something I had nothing, whatsoever, to do with. And you know that. Troll on.
1
@jackson505 Quote: "You're the type of guy that reports Youtube comments." You are a girl that fabricates events. It is noteworthy that triggered, woke leftists troll Alex's comment section.
1
@1:50 -- Alex, you should send someone else in to that McDonalds, and say something derogatory about President Trump in front of that same man that called the police. When he jumps on board, and he bashes President Trump (rather than saying that that is not allowed, and he does not call the police), then go back and spotlight his hypocrisy. Then go to McDonalds' headquarters, and show them his hypocrisy, and ask them if that is allowed.
1
@JohnA-bear One other thought... I have seen a few videos of First Amendment auditors where they have disdain for police. They wait for a police officer to make the mildest misstep, and then the auditor rips in to the officers, cursing at them and doing everything that they can to upset the officers. The auditor knows exactly how far he can go, legally. I do not support that level of abusive conduct and abusive language. For example, when the police are called, and they show up and ask "Why are you here", the auditor does not have to say "Go eff yourself". Just because the auditor can be wildly rude, does not mean that the auditor should be wildly rude.
1
@1:40 "You can't be here." @1:45 "Why can't I be here?" @1:47 "People aren't going to answer your questions, here." Ironic, that she did not answer Alex's question. I guess that she is correct, because she said that people are not going to answer his questions, and she did not answer his question about why he can't be there.
1
Alex Stein is a genius. He made the Mayor of Plano Texas, and the members of the city council, shown to be imbeciles. He did a professional, entertaining job at showing them to be imbeciles. And credit also to the Trump impersonator. Folks, all of the planning, and the script writing, and doing it all without breaking character, is master level talent. On top of all of the hard work that was involved, think about how hard it is to hold back laughter while performing that act. That is what Alex Stein and his phone-a-friend pulled off.
1
Folks, youtube has put a blue "Context" message, directly below this video. The message was put there by an anonymous youtube employee, who is a tyrant. Why? When someone puts a pinned post (not pinned by the channel's host) above all other posts, with a blue background (no other posts have colored backgrounds), does not use a username, and does not provide an option for replies (like any other comment), then that person is a tyrant. They are at the controls, playing G-d. youtube claims that they are not authors. Yet, they routinely author communications, not covered by Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act. What I described above is one of countless examples. Note that virtually without exception, the anonymous youtube tyrants put their pinned comments only in postings by conservative hosts. I have never seen one for any leftist's channel, no matter how insane the posting, and no matter have non factual the posting, and no matter how fabricated the posting.
1
@2:50 -- Alex, since that student was fixated on the definition of genocide, I would have liked it if you had asked him for the definition of the word "the". He uses it all day, every day, and I will lay any odds that he cannot define "the". As such, you can use his own convoluted logic to conclude that he does not know what "the" means.
1
@Kjionic I showed this video to my Phrenologist. Your point is similar to what she said about the moon landing and Hulk Hogan.
1
@Charles_Anthony "I mean, technically speaking, to deface something means to permanently alter and or damage it." Technically, what they did is deface the sidewalk. 1) Are the police supposed to know which materials are, or are not, permanent? 2) Who decides what qualifies as temporary? Even the paint used on all of our roads is not permanent. What about paints that would come off with special cleaning fluids? Are those paints allowed, due to technically not being permanent? 3) What about folks that will chalk up the sidewalk, immediately after it is washed clean -- over, and over, and over. Each time, it is temporary. But their chalkings are there 99% of the time. It is illegal to use any public property as your canvas.
1
@Charles_Anthony "Well, let's look into the cost of removing each material and if it negatively impacts the individual, business and or state." Where in the statues does "cost" determine the legality of defacing public property? 'Chalk is basically the most "temporary" of all since even walking over it will remove it, but water us virtually free, especially if the one using it is a employee of the state.' I will be sending you my water bill for my "virtually free" water. Offer to pay your neighbor's water bill, too. You are quick to call other people's water "virtually free". So you pay for it, since it is virtually free. And if "a employee of the state" is using water to erase chalk, it is anything but free. We The People's taxes are paying for that employee's time. We The People's taxes are also paying for that public facility's water costs. If you insist that it is virtually free, then have the government send you the bill for that employee's time, and another bill for the water meter's usage for the amount used to clean off the chalk. And if you have no problem with people chalking up the public streets, then you should have no problem with them doing the same on your car and on your home. You can wash it off, with your time, "virtually free". "Paint needs chemicals to remove and, in most cases, the surface needs to be blocked off so it not only costs money to remove but disrupts day to day life." So when road crews are re-painting the lane dividers, it was due to someone that used chemicals that faded the original road lane paintings? And the roads were closed down when that someone used their chemicals on the road paintings? The paint on the roadways do not fade away? It is chemicals that are the cause? I am done entertaining your nonsense, and your attempts at changing the subject. The comment that I initially made was about it being illegal to deface public property. That includes chalk. That is the law. And when someone chalks up a public sidewalk with "Blacks and Jews are all scum", or "All Muslims are terrorists", or "White Power", etc, then remember, the chalk is temporary. So you will have no problem with them writing that filth on our public sidewalks. Right? If public sidewalks are an open canvas, then you are okay with whatever people write. See how that works out.
1
@Charles_Anthony "I'm not going to read all of that." Yes, you did. You are lying, because you are making a fool of yourself. So you claim to not have read what I wrote. Like most losers, run away and hide. I tried to educate you. But you are determined to remain ignorant, and are happy to make public comments espousing your ignorance (that is what ignorant people do). You are determined to write absurd statements, and when challenged and proven wrong, you try to change the subject or claim to not read the reply (which is even more cowardly). I have concluded that you are a troll. I do not engage trolls. Reply with anything that you want. You will be talking to the hand.
1
Excellent wife material. Alex, giving her a platform shows the DNC a prime candidate for governor. You just helped the DNC discover their next rising star. I need to take a shower.
1
That was hilarious. Also, it was scripted. That was a Trump impersonator, in case anyone is not sure.
1
Alex, I look forward to you winning big-time with your law-suit.
1
Alex, you can also throw in that Dontarius identifies as a woman, and is a victim of white privileged. Hit all of the woke talking points of those mentally disturbed leftists.
1
All of their equipment (tables, flag poles, pens, cameras, chairs, eyeglass frames, soda bottles / water bottles, etc) are oil based. They all traveled there via vehicles that require oil. They all love oil,, while protesting oil, because they are too stupid to understand that they are protesting the very thing that they personally use every day, in significant quantities.
1
Please take note of the "super" pinned comment, posted directly below our host's video. It has a light blue background. An anonymous youtube employee is using g-d mode, to post her comment above all other comments. No one can unpin it -- not even the channel's host. No one can reply to that comment. Some anonymous youtube employee is trying to convey that her opinion is fact. That is a form of editing, and youtube is prohibited from being an editor, in order to retain protections under Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act. youtube is in violation of that Act, and should lose its Section 230 protections (which allows anyone to post comments, without youtube being sued, due to what the public posts). If youtube posted comments, like anyone else, in the comments section, that would be fine. But when youtube chimes in, as they are doing in this video, with editor powers, they cease to be just another user, and become editors.
1
This comes down to those tyrants denying Alex free speech. The council members do not get to choose the words that a citizen uses. Yet, they cut his microphone, and they used physical policing force to remove him from the room. That is what those council members did, after they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States Of America. They piss on their oath. They did not like what he was saying, and so his free speech is quashed. One council member stated that Alex does his performance around the country. Apparently, she knows of a clause in our Constitution that prohibits that "performance" type of free speech that no one else has ever found in our Constitution. They know that they are not allowed to cut him off. They know that their actions are unconstitutional. They simply do not care. Tyrants prey on our constitutional protections. I hope that Alex sues them, both individually, and as a committee. By the way, both the Mayor (Carolyn Goodman) and the other degenerate that called the police over are both radical leftist Democrats.
1
Two words: Illegals for Trump.
1
That cop should be written up, perhaps suspended, for pissing on his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. If is disgraceful that a law officer is denying people their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble, and denying people their First Amendment right to free speech.
1
@1:40 "You can't be here." @1:45 "Why can't I be here?" @1:47 "People aren't going to answer your questions, here." Ironic, that she did not answer Alex's question. I guess that she is correct, because she said that people are not going to answer his questions, and she did not answer his question about why he can't be there.
1
Two words: Big booty Latina.
1
Alex, you perform great services, and post amazing videos. However, do not give leftists a legitimate opportunity to call you dishonest. The title of this video is untrue. This was not after the assassination attempt. It is a repeat of a video from months ago.
1