Comments by "" (@sirtra) on "The Hill" channel.

  1. 48
  2. 34
  3. 29
  4. 27
  5. 24
  6. 23
  7. 20
  8. 19
  9. 18
  10. 18
  11. 16
  12. 16
  13. 14
  14. 13
  15. 13
  16. 12
  17. 10
  18. 9
  19. 8
  20. 8
  21. 8
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. As a colonizer and oppressor, you give the oppressed some land next door to you and start raising some lambs in your backyard. Your next door neighbour, the colonized and oppressed, doesn't like this and decides to start feeding and housing wolves. Every few weeks the wolves slaughter a bunch of your lambs. You ask your neighbour to please stop harbouring the wolves that are killing your lambs, their response is "no, that paddock you built is occupying land i want, you should move out" This goes on for years and many lambs and wolves are killed. You decide you've had enough and inform your neighbour that as they're not willing to control the wolves they are harbouring, you're going to start culling them and they should steer clear if they didn't want to get hurt in the crossfire. Your neighbour ignores you and instead decides to set up a tent and sleep with the wolves. One evening many wolves are erradicated but your neighbour in their tent gets hurt and his wife dies. It's very sad. You once again approach them about the wolves, they yet again refuse to do anything, stating they are not responsible for the wolves actions and you are occupying land they want. The difference between you and your neighbour is that they condone wolves slaughtering your lambs, even in the aftermath of losing a wife, in the interests of gaining territory, aka terrorism... whereas you condone slaughtering wolves, even in the aftermath of killing the wife, in the interests of preserving your lambs. Neither side is completely innocent, lives are being lost by both.. one values life over land whereas the other values land over life. Which side you align with matches your values.
    1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174.  @sh0t0kan  guess i'm not getting that list then? It's a slang/informal term, from a legal perspective there is no such thing. Y'all are thinking that because you've done a google search and found some text that matches "grand theft auto", it must be the legal definition of the crime. It's not. Just as there is no such thing as "Grand Theft Fire" or my favourite misconstrued crimes that are not a legal definition "Grand Theft Fish" There is only "Grand theft" and "Petty theft" Under "Grand theft" there are several different classifications that, if met, could see a person be charged with "Grand theft". Whilst someone could be charged with "Grand theft" of an automobile, firearm, fish or any other item, there is no such thing as "Grand Theft Auto" from a technical legal perspective - to put it into perhaps words you kids will understand... You will not find a single court case, even in California, where someone has been charged for the crime of "Grand Theft Auto" nor "Auto theft" nor "Grand Theft Fire" nor "Grand Theft Fish" all of them, legally speaking, are just "Grand theft" Here is how that section of penal code in Cali actually begins, perhaps this will make you comprehend the section D part more clearly, which is NOT confirmation that GTA is a thing, its a slang/informal term: --- What Does California Penal Code §§487(a) – (d) [Grand Theft] Prohibit? In sum, to be guilty of Grand Theft under CPC §§487(a)-(d), you must: Take property or services worth more than $950; OR, Take a firearm; OR, Take an automobile; OR, Take fish from a fishery or research operation; AND, Intend on keeping what you took.
    1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. ​ @Josh-hq6eb Ask yourself, imagine you ran a unicorn shop which manufactures and repairs unicorns for clients, your business is doing well and it's time to hire a new employee! You interview a bunch of ppl, most have unicorn assembly or similar experience but one catches your eye in particular.. a young lady, just graduated highschool, never even ridden on a unicorn before let alone experience building or repairing them but she really likes them. A lot. She can list every model your company has ever produced, plus your competitors and even tried making her own mini-scale unicorn as a school project. Now she's going to take far longer to train, may even damage some things early on but you like her enthusiasm and think once she gets the hang of it all could be one of your best employees - so despite your best judgements you give her a go! Without a non-compete clause cause you ain't like that homie, you're a good guy. A few months go by and low n behold a few unicorns were badly damaged and took 3 times as long to train but finally she's doing great! You've taught her the tricks of the trade and one of your biggest clients even sent her a thank you gift after she repaired 20 unicorns for them last week. She quits that day, doesn't say why or even has to and cause you're a good guy - you just let her fly away free! A few weeks go by and oddly, you haven't heard from that big client very much recently, they used to order 12 unicorns a week but haven't ordered a single one for at least 2 weeks now. You call em up to check everything is okay and if they need any unicorns. They say nah, things are great and they've been ordering unicorns from this new company you've never heard of for $1 less than your price. Other than that the unicorns are nearly identical and even have your special unannounced tail features that were going to be released next week after a year in secret development! You lookup this new company and who owns it only to find out it's the young lady. She not only took your client but your new product feature. What do you do? Cause you're a good guy it's simply a competitor offering a better price and product, so ask yourself who has actually been robbed? 🤷
    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. 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
  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. ​ @xiaodaigu5659 not brokering a peace deal and letting thousands of human lives be lost in conflict is not good for the world. Blowing up a pipeline and causing the largest human release of methane into our atmosphere is not good for the world. Sending clusterbombs, something nearly all developed nations have banned the use of, with an unacceptably high failure rate and will remain a risk to civilians for years if not decades into the future is not good for the world. There are many things about this war that are not good for the world, but if grain shipments is your highest concern and any action preventing them from happening is considered reprehensible.. it's worth noting that the Black Sea Grain Initiative was suspended at one point because of an attack on the Russian fleet. Allowing a further attack would almost certainly not eliminate the blockade but would definitely escalate the conflict.. which would be far worse for the world. I take it you've taken the same stance with Poland not allowing grain exports too right? A peace deal is the end game and the sooner it happens the better, sadly the proxy war in Ukraine is looking like Afghanistan 2.0 more and more each day this drags on... but hey that invasion of a sovereign country by a much larger superpower was okay because 'merica! Last but not least, if both the US military and Ukraine military had no other means or capability to carry out such a mission without the use of Starlink, i don't think threatening Musk is going to have a beneficial result.. if anything it'll likely have the opposite effect and make him stop providing access at all. What next, the US government just takes a private asset from a US citizen so they can give access to a foreign military that isn't even an ally of the US? Because poor people? 😂
    1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. Nonono, it works like this... First we have the US government who is responsible for policy and legislative decisions and make announcements about it etc. Then you have Politico who provide a valuable and essential service where they provide up to date information about those policy and legislative decisions mentioned above. Then the US government pays for a subscription to Politico for this vital service providing updates on US policy and legislative decisions. So, in order for US government employees to obtain the latest information and updates for US government policy and legislative decisions they must purchase a subscription at a very reasonable rate from a private company which provides up to date information on US government policy and legislative decisions - if they don't buy a subscription the only other way the US government employees would be able to access this information would be from the US government that they are an employee of. There is no soap or washing machines or even paper notes involved so this claim there is money laundering is just preposterous!!! If anything the US government should be paying way more to politico otherwise they may cut the US government off and how will US government employees then have access the US government policy and legislative decisions hmmm?!? HMM!? It's not like the US government are employees of the US government and have access to US government information... only politico has that information and they charge a fee so........... 🤪
    1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1