Youtube comments of JustAThought! (@JustAThought155).

  1. 2600
  2. 996
  3. 526
  4. 333
  5. 271
  6. 169
  7. 154
  8. 96
  9. 95
  10. 94
  11. 93
  12. 91
  13. 90
  14. 87
  15. 85
  16. 83
  17. 80
  18. 78
  19. 77
  20. 77
  21. 74
  22. 72
  23. 57
  24. 57
  25. 56
  26. 51
  27. 50
  28. 47
  29. 44
  30. 42
  31. 42
  32. 41
  33. 40
  34. 40
  35. 39
  36. 36
  37. 36
  38. 36
  39. 35
  40. 34
  41. 34
  42. 34
  43. 33
  44. 33
  45. 31
  46. 31
  47. 30
  48. 29
  49. 29
  50. 28
  51. 28
  52. 28
  53. 27
  54. 27
  55. 24
  56. 24
  57. 23
  58. 23
  59. 23
  60. 22
  61. 22
  62. 21
  63. 21
  64. 21
  65. 21
  66. 20
  67. 20
  68. 20
  69. 20
  70. 19
  71. 18
  72. 18
  73. 18
  74. 18
  75. 18
  76. 17
  77. 17
  78. 17
  79. 16
  80. 16
  81. 16
  82. 16
  83. 16
  84. 15
  85. 15
  86. 15
  87. 15
  88. 15
  89. 15
  90. 14
  91. 14
  92. 14
  93. 13
  94. 13
  95. 13
  96. 13
  97. 13
  98. 13
  99. 13
  100. 13
  101. 13
  102. 13
  103. 13
  104. 13
  105. 12
  106. 12
  107. 12
  108. 12
  109. 12
  110. 11
  111. 11
  112. 11
  113. 11
  114. 11
  115. 11
  116. 10
  117. 10
  118. 10
  119. 10
  120. 10
  121. 10
  122. 10
  123. 10
  124. 9
  125. 9
  126. 9
  127. 9
  128. 9
  129. 9
  130. 9
  131. 9
  132. 9
  133. 8
  134. 8
  135. 8
  136. 8
  137. 8
  138. 8
  139. 8
  140. 8
  141. 8
  142. 8
  143. 8
  144. 8
  145. 8
  146. 8
  147. 7
  148. 7
  149. 7
  150. 7
  151. 7
  152. 7
  153. 7
  154. 7
  155. 7
  156. 7
  157. 7
  158. 7
  159. 7
  160. 7
  161. 7
  162. 7
  163. 7
  164. 7
  165. 7
  166. 7
  167. 6
  168. 6
  169. 6
  170. 6
  171. 6
  172. 6
  173. 6
  174. 6
  175. 6
  176. 6
  177. 6
  178. 6
  179. 6
  180. 6
  181. 6
  182. 6
  183. 6
  184. 6
  185. 6
  186. 6
  187. 6
  188. 6
  189. 6
  190. 5
  191. 5
  192. 5
  193. 5
  194. 5
  195. 5
  196. 5
  197. 5
  198. 5
  199. 5
  200. 5
  201. 5
  202. 5
  203. 5
  204. 5
  205. 5
  206. 5
  207. 5
  208. 5
  209. 5
  210. 5
  211. 5
  212. 5
  213. 5
  214. 5
  215. 5
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. 4
  219. 4
  220. 4
  221. 4
  222. 4
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 4
  227. 4
  228. 4
  229. 4
  230. 4
  231. 4
  232. 4
  233. 4
  234. 4
  235. 4
  236. 4
  237. 4
  238. 4
  239. 4
  240. 4
  241. 4
  242. 4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 4
  251. 4
  252. 4
  253. 4
  254. 4
  255. 4
  256. 4
  257. 4
  258. 4
  259. 4
  260. 4
  261. 4
  262. 4
  263. 4
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. Keep fighting this fight true sport stars!!! To the NFL: I stopped paying money to allow medical burdens to be released on the fragile United States economy. The tax-free corporation called the NFL, has released more injured Americans into our society, as they earn millions of dollars, yet fail to help carry the financial burden their corporation/business creates on our nation. If you do not understand the above point, let me explain it in plain language: I do not watch any football games. I do not pay to watch, via television - as in pay for cable to see a game, any game college or professional. I do not condone any team where the boss (CEO) of the entire league refuses to accept medical evidence proving their 'workers' are becoming physically destroyed because of their participation in the required activities of the industry. NFL, if your corporation took an approach showing sympathy, freely seeking ways, from the start of this issue, based on the first test results, concluded in the Pittsburg studies conducted by Dr.Omalu, as well as, the findings of Dr. McKee, I would accept the act as a concerned industry. Since you have not chosen to do so, I have concluded you are a company, wealthy enough to not need anymore donated funds from my wallet; yes, this is sarcasm used when writing the word donation, but it is also a true fact. The word donation is used only to express the reality that I choose to donate my time and money to support something outside of the realm of it being a necessity. Therefore, your company will no longer receive contributions from this hard working American!
    3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. Oh my gosh! This comment is long. Sorry. Ugh!!! I lived through this mess in real time! I remember the Bronco chase and how our shows were pre-emptied. Really, when that happened, viewers that watched ABC’s 20/20 witnessed the ABC anchorman, Peter Jennings, verbally STIFLE the Queen of televised news herself, Barbara Walter’s, like, LIVE on the air. Wow! That act alone sent shockwaves across the airwaves. So, after all of that drama, I have been hesitant to watch ANYTHING about this case for many many years. Before I vent, let me first say, I am a person of color. However, I was NOT in favor of the accused man at all. Here’s why: The man surrounded himself with a limited number of persons of color. He had surgery to thin his ethnically plump lips. He divorced his wife, first or second, who was (is) the mother of his children and she was (is) a woman of color. Why did he divorce himself from her? Oh, so that he was free to enter into relations with caucasian women…only. Find old footage. Hey, I watched the man play football in real time and NOT on highlight reels. And once he jumped for the Hertz commercials, the man jumped right out of the dark skinned people’s social pool, in my opinion. Really. Yet, for some unbeknownst to me reason, during his trial, he was suddenly elevated as THE Black man of the century! And honestly, once that become the central focus of the trial, I never watched the trial…EVER…despite it being ‘streamed’ EVERYWHERE, like, EVERY…WHERE; remember, this was longggggg before the live-stream era! So, as I rant, again I say, I never agreed with the defense’s strategy. Hey, here’s what the defense team did, do you remember the slogan from the Russell Crow Gladiator movie: win the people. Yup! That is exactly what the defense team did! Hey, the team put racial conflict on trial and NOT the murders, in my opinion. So, basically, the defense team simply stirred the emotions in an emotional hot-bed city, especially when discussing White officer’s racial bias towards Black people, let alone Black Men! If I am not mistaken, didn’t the trial occur after 1992…in LA…??? Need I say anymore about racial tension between White officers and Black men…Rodney King??? Right. But most of all, and above all of the listed issues, I could not stand how Los Angeles turned the brutal deaths of two people into a money-making theatrical cesspool!!! Absolutely HORRIBLE! After venting those concealed thoughts, I will probably not watch this mess. There are better things to focus on than that same old horrible racial narrative. Let’s move on.❤
    3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. As American baseball’s lasting rule states: three strikes and you are OUT! In this murderer’s case, in my opinion, he is no longer eligible to live amongst the free society! Sorry, this is longer than expected. I had to vent. Honestly, I think Australia needs to reconsider many of their judicially defined prison sentences. But again, regarding this case, here is the bottom line: the man freely murdered ladies, multiple times. And in my mind, he is and should be considered a THREAT to society. Mind you, his version of processing his life and dealing with the issues he faces in life is based on subjecting harm and control over others. And every attempt is to benefit his needs and desires, which is evident in his multiple attempts to gain his freedom: letters, self-proclaimed rehabilitation, sex-change (times 2); all of which are characteristics based on a manipulative personality. Above all, innocent people should not be punished with the burden of existing in life whilst living in fear because this man is eligible for a released sentence because of some antiquated legislation choice that was decided by factors associated with funding and prison space. Be safe! The victimization of the innocent is often overlooked in the halls of judicial institutions, really. I mean, honestly, hasn’t history shown us the perils of repeat offenders? So when does it stop? Oh, I know, when another few victims are murdered. Then we’ll see 60 Minutes Australia, a decade from now discussing how a one time serial killer was released from prison only to kill again. Enough is ENOUGH, in my opinion.😢
    2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. Here's my question: what border???? Sarcasm used for emphasis! Here's an added interesting fact. It seems our illegal immigration issue seems to focus the most on our southwest border. However, according to a Pew Research report, "Mexicans may no longer be the majority of U.S. unauthorized immigrants. They made up half of all unauthorized immigrants in 2016, according to the Center’s preliminary estimate, marking the first time in at least a decade that they did not account for a clear majority of this population. Their numbers (and share of the total) have been declining in recent years: There were 5.6 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2015 and 2016, down from 6.4 million in 2009. Meanwhile, the number of unauthorized immigrants from nations other than Mexico has grown since 2009, from 5 million that year to 5.4 million in 2015. Non-Mexicans numbered 5.7 million in the preliminary 2016 estimate, a total that was not statistically different from 2015. From 2009 to 2015, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Asia and Central America rose. Increases in the number from other countries have mostly offset the decline in the number from Mexico (and a relatively small decrease in the number from South America)" (Pew Research 10.3.16). Based on a 2016 article by a Newsweek affiliate, Latin Times report, this reality has been an issue commonly overlooked when discussing the illegal immigrant: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now estimates 93,000 Canadian overstays, more than double the amount of Mexican overstays (42,000) and about the same as the combined total of South America America (Cedar Attanasi: 2018 Newsweek Media Group). So why such a disparity? Probably because "Canadians have a higher median income, are less likely to live in poverty, and are more likely to have health insurance and to be college educated. They are significantly older, on average, than the overall immigrant and U.S.-born populations" as Elijah Alperin and Jeanne Batalova reported in a 2018 article for the Migration Policy Institute (6.7.2018). Yet, according to the same article, "In 2017, Canadians living abroad, whether in the United States or other country, sent approximately US $1.3 billion in remittances...[a sum of money sent, especially by mail, in payment for goods or services or as a gift (Google)] to Canada via formal channels, according to World Bank data" (Migration Policy Institute 6.7.2018). So, let's check our policies based on the treatment ALL illegal immigrants must be subjected to so that we can truly justify the treatment addressed in this post. Thus, here's my question: is this treatment practiced on our northern boarders, as well, to PROTECT our society? P. S. Here's the reality, who has been hiring and reaping a fat tax-free/reduced income benefits based on employing these so-called illegals??? Who is the TRUE illegal in this reality???
    2
  487. I learned of this case from the CBS show “48 Hours.” I am baffled by this guy’s deceptive behavior. Therefore, I wonder if he was taught from an early age that success was obtained by your position in society? According to the “48 Hours” episode, Chandler was at one point, a very successful swimmer, possibly, for years. Also, a letter written by his mother was read by one of his mother’s relatives, on the show. The letter shares many of the successful positions and accomplishments her two sons had achieved, but there was no mention of the mom sharing how pleased she was to simply spend time with her two sons who have grown into great men. Of course only a portion of the letter was read. However, based on the limited information available through that one episode, and the personal accounts shared: e.g., the letter; it seemed easy to assess how the sons could have had an expectation of socially acceptable success being instilled in them throughout their lives. In reality, every deceptive item on Chandler’s verbal resume was associated with being highly successful, socially. And each of the deceptive positions he shared about hinged on the items that made it into the mother’s letter to her family members. This is telling, in my opinion. Thus, it is easy to see how non-verbal signs and actions lead to outward behaviors, as your assessment suggests. And in this case, it seems as if Chandler sought to achieve family worthy success, but knew he failed at doing so, and basically decided to destroy the source of the pressure rather than trying to live with the fact that he did not have to or that he could not measure up to the expected social standards set by his family’s expectations. This is not an excuse nor sympathy or empathy for this killer. Chandler is a criminal. He could also easily have mental issues that fail to provide him the tools of facing life on life’s terms. But was this natural or was this nurtured? Relying again upon the CBS “48 Hours” episode, Chandler was successful in his parent’s mindset. Yet, another telling fact was shown about expectations in that family. The sons were both in a relationship with their girlfriends. However, Chandler’s union as built on falsehood, hiding, him returning home to live with his parents as he agreed to eventually be “traced” via Snapchat by his seemingly long term girlfriend. However, if you hear the read letter from his mother, notice how that aspect of the story did not appear in the news sent to the family, for the mom simply wrote in the letter with an image of her sons standing next to their girlfriends, how successful the boys were and how “the boys and their woman” stood perfectly smiling for the picture. The mother could have easily shared how her sons are growing up rather than the schooling and workplaces are even topped off with her sons having “their women” as well. Overall, it seems as if hints of deception were common in the family as an attempt to keep up the appearance of one happily united successful team. And honestly, we are seeing how not everyone can live like this, hence the upswing of the many other family annihilators are making the headlines, sadly.
    2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  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. I am at a loss. Gospel "star"??? What is that??? We see people weeping before the Lord in the video clip, but this man is sitting there saying "we dropped the single and it's doing good." Therefore, can I ask: Who "Deserves It" then???? Did you say people are "screaming your name" because you are allowed to usher people to sing unto the Lord??? So, why have you not rebuked them, for your "new single" declares the Lord as the One "who deserves all the glory." You know, this is why I try to NOT listen to these people talk! As much as I love singing this song, unto the Lord, I am taken aback by this interview due to the vessel who proclaims himself as the "star" associated with singing worship TO the AUTHOR of the good news, or "gospel." Sorry, but the "star" of the gospel is the Lord God Almighty, His Holy Beloved Redeeming Son Jesus, and His powerful, yet tender and humble, Holy Spirit. Oh Lord, you have declared that you will share your glory with none. Therefore, please dethrone those who desire and strive to receive the praise due to You, King of Kings. Just like You removed the "fallen star," described in Isaiah 14, so long ago. God please call a remnant, from the masses of these churches, who will worship You in "spirit and truth," while alone with You. For You said, as recorded in Matthew 6:5, “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you" (Jesus). In my opinion, worship is prayer and prayer is a form of worship, therefore, the words of the above text, from the Bible, can apply.
    1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 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.  @Cruzeoc101 , Low powered firearms are often described as rifles that are intermediate calibers. However, attention bent on qualifying terms for an item that blows out a school’s door so a 28 year old angry lady can gain open access to use her high-powered firearms, equipped to facilitate mass casualties, causes me concern. My initial reaction to your comment: ignore the ignorant. My next response involves discussing my opinionated desire to use the term “high powered” based on a weapon’s ballistics energy. University of Utah states how cartridge data might be the real question. Basically, they explain “if the 44 magnum is compared with the 357 magnum, the effect of bore diameter is seen. The larger area of the 44 magnum creates more force with the same pressure, allowing the 44 magnum to produce more energy at the muzzle. The effect of case capacity can be demonstrated in a comparison of the 9 mm parabellum (para) with the 357 magnum. These cartridges have similar diameters and pressures, but the 357 magnum is much longer, yielding more case volume (more powder), and delivers more energy” (https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html). Based on this information, I suggest the term “energy” replicates—more closely—my purposefully used “high powered” weapon term. The chosen weapons by the assailant, Audrey Hale, packed high “energy” projectiles, in my opinion. Of course your question is often used as a differential determining a gun enthusiast versus a typical “ban high powered weapons” social lobbyist. I am neither. What I am, however, is a saddened American hurt by the news of my friends friends who have unexpectedly lost their lives when simply taking care of children in a church’s school building. Sadly, in my US nation, most citizens grudgingly define the difference between the terms, low and high powered weapons, based solely on our shocked reactions as we watch and weep whilst witnessing children running in sheer panic as some gun owner brandishing semiautomatic assault weapons, with large capacity magazines packing extremely high velocity ballistics, dominating non-combative innocent people who are often simply trying to receive an education or offer an education to others that is often geared towards being better citizens striving to learn for the betterment of our country’s success. And THAT is the issue I sought and seek to address in my emotionally driven originally shared comment, which correlates more with the British reporter’s stance.
    1
  601.  @Cruzeoc101 , The gun enthusiast you obviously are, I commend you for such knowledge. However, as stated in my message, I am “neither,” meaning I am not a gun enthusiast. Instead, my terminology is solely based on the energy of the projectile. Now to address another fact, your loneliness seems to be evident. Conducting a conversation about a term in light of the true nature of my message: grief after learning of now murdered acquaintances, I suggest you find another dialogue to express and elevate your necessity to boast your weapons knowledge. I am more grieved that you would seek to debate terminology about firearms with an admitted non-gun novice, who is merely exercising patience and a desire to TRY to converse with you rather than equating your intelligence with ignorance, to elicit a weapons argument that elevates your internal insecurities. This act is simply embarrassing, in my experience. Therefore, please feel free to engage your stance with another who prefers to tackle the qualifications associated with rifles. I am not that candidate. But above all, relying upon assumptions based on faceless opinionated sites to justify and exercise your weaponry knowledge constitutes an elementary form of maturity. Time to discuss such matters with someone on your equal, meaning one as knowledgeable about guns. I don’t study the instruments used to kill my loved ones. I prefer to seek solutions to stop such acts from happening 130 times in 3 months, which I share as a refresher: the topic of my shared post. How and why you fail to discuss that tragic reality indicates an ignorance that fails to justify conversing with you about ANYTHING pertaining to knowledge; if you lack empathy for the dead but defend cold metal, you lack the qualifications associated with humanity. Sorry.😢…🤢…🤮🤮🤮🤮
    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.  @michaelwoodbodley8099 , Thanks. I guess this episode provided me some new information. After a brief time of research, I learned a few things about Naval terms. According to the US Naval Institute, here are some interesting facts: One of the quickest ways to establish yourself as a naval novice is to refer to a ship as a boat. Unfortunately, there is no absolute way to define the difference. However, some criteria can be applied to help those who care to try. In general, a boat is a watercraft (for want of a better word) that is small enough to be carried on board a larger one, and that larger one is a ship. This is sometimes expressed this way: “A ship can carry a boat, but a boat can never carry a ship…Sometimes, when it is not clear whether we are dealing with a small ship or a big boat, the term “craft” is employed…Using the above guidance, submarines are technically ships. Yet they are traditionally referred to as boats. The original submarines were very small and manned only when in use, so “boat” was appropriate. But as they developed into larger vessels—and rightfully should have been called ships—the original term stuck…When the large nuclear subs began to appear, there was an attempt by some submariners to start calling them ships, but as with many things in the Navy, tradition trumped logic, and today, all submarines—even the giant “boomers” (fleet ballistic-missile submarines)—are called boats. But the Dictionary of Naval Terms (Naval Institute Press, 2005) defines “vessel” as “every description of craft, ship, or other contrivance used as a means of transportation on water.” Other dictionaries confirm the acceptability of this term, including Webster’s—“a watercraft bigger than a rowboat.” Perhaps most convincing of all is that “The Official Inventory of U.S. Naval Ships and Service Craft” is formally known as the “Naval Vessel Register.” So, the bottom line is that vessel is an acceptable term in most naval circles” (https://www.usni.org › october › bl...Bluejacket's Manual - Of Ships and Boats and . . . | Naval History Magazine). I learned something new today.😁
    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
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. As an American who was raised in poverty, I have always equated Thatcher with the President Reagan Republican politicians who worked earnestly for one segment of society that fits into one of all of three categories: the upper middle class, the wealthy, and especially those who were European descendants. Today, as I watch this and other interviews of this leader, I appreciate aspects of her leadership including her focused steadfastness. Yet, I question if her views and policies included the plight of the many immigrants who were introduced and seduced by the United Kingdom’s (mythical inclusionary) ways because of the colonialism that invaded their native homelands. Sadly, in other interviews, I sensed many of her “just get on with it” theories were set on her own family’s ways of existence and success. However, such logic qualifies as a ‘one size fits all’ approach for an entire population, or kingdom. Please know that I deeply appreciate Thatcher’s candid comments and focus. However, I simply do not fully understand the British government. Therefore, could British people share and help me understand how she is seemingly elevated and adored now, but when in office, her policies seemed to cause social divide and a seemingly absent voice for the many ethnic groups under the United Kingdom’s leadership. No argument intended. Please, no rude language and angry comments necessary. Please share your experience as those who have experienced living and surviving under Thatcher’s governance. Thank you.
    1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. FYI: I am watching a People Magazine Investigates episode called “The Freeway Phantom” (Season 4 Episode 4), the retelling of Washington DC’s possible first serial killer who snatched and killed young Black American girls. While watching it, something intriguing caught my attention and caused worry. In that 1970s DC case, once the FBI finally took steps to help the local police find that city’s child murderer, who was murdering Black American girls in the early 1970s in the Washington DC area, they discovered “one green thread that was located on every victim…probably from the carpet of an automobile” (25:58 - 26:32 minute marker) during ‘their,’ the FBI’s, close examination of things that were possibly “looked over” (25:50 - 26:00 minute marker) by the local DC authorities in that child murderer’s case. The “green synthetic fiber” narrative is described nearly verbatim in both child abduction cases, and this is especially noticed in the People Magazine Investigate’s episode along with other stories about this case: i.e., CNN’s How it Really Happened: The Atlanta Serial Killer: Do You Know Where Your Children Are? Part 1 - 2 (“How It Really Happened” Season 5 Episode 1-2). Well, if you remember, the same “green thread” evidence was found during the FBI’s investigation into this Atlanta Child Murders case, once their, the FBI’s, forensic team of experts conducted the examination of the Atlanta Child Murder’s victim’s evidence in that case, which were possibly overlooked by Atlanta’s local authorities. And remember, the “green thread” evidence in this case helped to break the Atlanta’s child murderer’s case and led to that city’s killer’s arrest. Understand this, I don’t doubt the charged man, Wayne, might be linked. However, I find it extremely disturbing to hear that a “green thread” was found on the victims in both serial killer’s cases in the two serial killer cases involving abducted Black American children in two heavily populated Black American communities. Remember, once the thread was discovered, the case was soon shifted from investigating more suspects in an effort of gaining a resolution, to the case’s attention shifting to the FBI’s ability to ‘crack’ the case. Sadly, in the Washington DC case, the killer was never apprehended. But the Atlanta case was solved. Why? Discovered green thread.🤔JustAThought.
    1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. I watched the segment and her show being cancelled, because of her sharing her opinion, seems outlandish to me. I am a dark skin American who was not offended. I cannot speak for all people, but, in my opinion, this so called "controversy" spreads racism. If they cancelled the show because she made negative comments about Kent University, or the school in England that she condemned due to their policies on costumes, then I would understand the offense, somewhat. However, this cancellation due to her mentioning not understanding why a lady was considered offensive towards others because she darkened her skin tone for a one day costume event is certainly not grounds for being terminated. Thus, the cancellation generates and creates a negative bias towards those they claim are offended, or the people of color. In turn, they have now turned her simple comment into a topic that fuels anger. In other words, this is an ongoing tactic, by the media that dominates this society, to stir negative attitudes towards people groups. Why did they not cancel the show due to her speaking out about Kent University or college? Why did they not cancel the show due to the Nazi comment? Therefore I ask, why did they cancel the show due to her asking why someone offended others because she darkened her skin to look like Diana Ross? So, here is my take on this matter: I call your bluff media execs, sorry, you are the racist who seek to stir controversy in order to acquire more money and viewership. Therefore, stop attacking the Black race!!!
    1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. Here's an added interesting fact. It seems our illegal immigration issue seems to focus the most on our southwest boarder. However, according to a Pew Research report, "Mexicans may no longer be the majority of U.S. unauthorized immigrants. They made up half of all unauthorized immigrants in 2016, according to the Center’s preliminary estimate, marking the first time in at least a decade that they did not account for a clear majority of this population. Their numbers (and share of the total) have been declining in recent years: There were 5.6 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2015 and 2016, down from 6.4 million in 2009. Meanwhile, the number of unauthorized immigrants from nations other than Mexico has grown since 2009, from 5 million that year to 5.4 million in 2015. Non-Mexicans numbered 5.7 million in the preliminary 2016 estimate, a total that was not statistically different from 2015. From 2009 to 2015, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Asia and Central America rose. Increases in the number from other countries have mostly offset the decline in the number from Mexico (and a relatively small decrease in the number from South America)" (Pew Research 10.3.16). Based on a 2016 article by a Newsweek affiliate, Latin Times report, this reality has been an issue commonly overlooked when discussing the illegal immigrant: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now estimates 93,000 Canadian overstays, more than double the amount of Mexican overstays (42,000) and about the same as the combined total of South America America (Cedar Attanasi: 2018 Newsweek Media Group). So why such a disparity? Probably because "Canadians have a higher median income, are less likely to live in poverty, and are more likely to have health insurance and to be college educated. They are significantly older, on average, than the overall immigrant and U.S.-born populations" as Elijah Alperin and Jeanne Batalova reported in a 2018 article for the Migration Policy Institute (6.7.2018). Yet, according to the same article, "In 2017, Canadians living abroad, whether in the United States or other country, sent approximately US $1.3 billion in remittances...[a sum of money sent, especially by mail, in payment for goods or services or as a gift (Google)] to Canada via formal channels, according to World Bank data" (Migration Policy Institute 6.7.2018). So, let's check our policies based on the treatment ALL illegal immigrants must be subjected to so that we can truly justify the treatment addressed in this post. Thus, here's my question: is this treatment practiced on our northern boarders, as well, to PROTECT our society? P. S. Here's the reality, who has been hiring and reaping a fat tax-free/reduced income benefits based on employing these so-called illegals??? Who is the TRUE illegal in this reality???
    1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. Interesting. As I listen to this, I have a few thoughts based on my experiences. Please do not comment on my post. These are my thoughts, which are not facts! I only write them to express my feelings without ruminating on them without a release. Don’t like my words, please scroll down and read someone else’s thoughts. He said the profound statements don’t come (solely) from “Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King or Winston Churchill.” Meaning, each person and child has their own profound perspective. But then he says, later in the interview, how surfing produces an ability to endure and persevere; in essence he is saying, the waves of the sea serve as a great instructor of endurance. The problem I have whilst I listen to this video is based on the three people he named and then honors the sea as a place to learn endurance and perseverance through hardships. Well, two of the three mentioned great men, who exemplified strength and endurance, weren’t even allowed to walk the surf line on beaches in their homelands, let alone surf. So, this surfer has a perspective. However, it reflects a very provided for existence that has not been shaped by inflicted pain from his fellow citizens. Some don’t have the luxury of riding waves to learn endurance. In fact, life has offered the waves that strive to wipe them out via mankind. But despite such opposition, they persevered as their bodies endured the consistent battering the ocean—called mankind—inflicted on their external and internal bodies, via physical battering and mental and emotional torture. Yet their words still remain as a testament of their ability to endure and remain strong in the midst of their ragging seas. Therefore, our life experiences can be used to help us and others. But learning from those, especially the three men mentioned, who have endured severe hardships and have gone before us, provide for us the strength and template to scribe our words of wisdom, in which others might find helpful as their life’s stories unfold.
    1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. I watched the segment and her show being cancelled, because of her sharing her opinion, seems outlandish to me. I am a dark skin American who was not offended. I cannot speak for all people, but, in my opinion, this so called "controversy" spreads racism. If they cancelled the show because she made negative comments about Kent University, or the school in England that she condemned due to their policies on costumes, then I would understand the offense, somewhat. However, this cancellation due to her mentioning not understanding why a lady was considered offensive towards others because she darkened her skin tone for a one day costume event is certainly not grounds for being terminated. Thus, the cancellation generates and creates a negative bias towards those they claim are offended, or the people of color. In turn, they have now turned her simple comment into a topic that fuels anger. In other words, this is an ongoing tactic, by the media that dominates this society, to stir negative attitudes towards people groups. Why did they not cancel the show due to her speaking out about Kent University or college? Why did they not cancel the show due to the Nazi comment? Therefore I ask, why did they cancel the show due to her asking why someone offended others because she darkened her skin to look like Diana Ross? So, here is my take on this matter: I call your bluff media execs, sorry, you are the racist who seek to stir controversy in order to acquire more money and viewership. Therefore, stop attacking the Black race!!!
    1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1