Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The New York Times" channel.

  1. 119
  2. 104
  3. 76
  4. 44
  5. 44
  6. 30
  7. 25
  8. 23
  9. 20
  10. 15
  11. 13
  12. 10
  13. 10
  14. 10
  15. 10
  16. 9
  17. 8
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 6
  21. 6
  22. 6
  23. 5
  24. 4
  25.  @chiknj23  you and the billionaires and millionaires you identify with, live off the dime of the people who are not paid enough for their work. from 1947 - 1970 productivity and wages rose (almost) in lockstep. That meant purchasing power of average wages DOUBLED in the U.S. - and it was similar in the other now wealthy states. The Golden Era, Economic Mircale, the Building of the American Middle Class - these are the names for that era. ad they just taken the federa minimum wage then and adjusted it for inflation the federa minimum wage would not be 7,25 USD but 12. had they continued to increase it according to productivity gains (as they did for 23 years) it would be around 20 USD (stats is a few years old - you get the idea). in the 70s ongoing immigration, compter use, ongoing research and automation and the women joining the workforce increase the workforce while demand for work hours slowly went down (also because of saturation of consumer demand). And with the oil crises in the 70s there was a sharp drop. The first major global crises in decades triggered longer and higer unemployment. Finally the 1 % (and people like you) were able to hit back against good wages and high taxation for rich and profitable businesses. Presidential debate in 1960 JFK / Nixon. They spoke also about an EFFECTIVE highest top marginal income tax rate of 72 %. JFK brought it up. To replace the 90 % in the books that were introduced in the 1940s, were paid after the war but had been hollowed out by many exemptions. That was debated in a very matter of fact manner.
    4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28.  @PeopleHealthTru  Mothers do NOT "need" to respecet nor love the father. feelings change and no human is entitled to "respect". Respect is something a partner (or anyone else) EARNS. Never mind that divorces happen even between partners that respect each other, the partners are or can return to a state of friendship and reasonable cooperation. But they have developed apart and do not want to be stuck with the other person till death do us part. Which meant a much shorter time when that phrase was created and it was another time and economy. It is not as if the marriages were happy (and beneficial for the emotional wellbeing of the children) a few generations back just because it was unusual to have a divorce and the parents were stuck in the marriages. It does not do any good to the children to watch their parents suffer through an unhappy, unsatisfying marriage. What is important for society: that the children are raised well - and that should NOT depend on the emontional relationship between ONE man and wife - or the economic fate of that family (or the ability of the man to make a high enough income). Other wealthy nations have out of wedlock births as well and a rate of divorces almost as high as the U.S. The losses of WW2 left plenty of widows who raised children without a man in the home - at least not the father of the children - so no wailing about the woes of the absent fathers. A committed father is certainly better than having none - but the children will survive and in these days one cannot force men or women to stay in a relationship. There are plenty of children born outside of marriage in Germany, Austria, France Netherlands for instance - the majority ! - except for the more conservative part of society - Muslim, devoted Catholics, maybe some farmers (who tend to be more conservative). The other folks thave their children FIRST. If they are still together when the child starts school (or kindergarden with 4 or 5) - that is often the time the parents feel compelled to "make it legal". Parents of children are more hesistant to break up - it does not matter if they are married or not. Seems like the children make them more committed to the relationship. There is NO reason THAT must undermine the web of society. But in these societies they have an automatic child allowance (everyone gets it, that is not welfare). And then programs for low income persons and families. Which in many cases will be single parents. Sure a divorce is not fun for But they DO not selfrighteously try to determine HOW other people have to live. The children need to be well taken care of - or they will not become productive and reliable members of society. Supporting them cannot be left to the mothers alone nor can it be left to the fathers. Nor is it desireable that a mother would have to work plus 40 hours, is not able to afford the rent in a safe area. She will be exhausted instead of taking care of the children and in a bad neighbourhoods there are many dangers for unsupervised children and teenagers. It takes a village to raise a child - that is a law of evolution, the little ones and their mothers were precious for the tribe. When did that principle become obsolete ? They didn't do core family, everyone is on their own during human evolution. They females did the work together and the whole bunch of children was with them while the men often hunten in groups as well. So it was shared work and shared "income". We do not live as hunter gatheres anymore, we live in anonymous settings often a long way from relatives. So a more anonymous community must step up to compensate for the "village".
    3
  29. 3
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. Chlorine works against Sarin (Chlorine is so active that it bonds to Sarin immediately) - it weakens the effect considerably. Never mind that Syria gave up their Sarin stocks in September 2013. Military grade Sarin can be discerned from "improvised" batches (less effective, more impurities, other chemicals to stabilize it, it has a "fingerprint"). Meaning IF the U.S. actually had blood samples with Sarin (in the alleged spring 2018 event) they would have had them analyzed - likely in the U.K. to find out the fingerprint - and than make educated guesses. We have not heard much of that anymore ..... and the Trump admin is not famous for being thruthful (the mouthipieces under Obama were sleek liars too- resp. they were good in giving non-answers and weaseling out) In August 2013 Obama blamed the attack immediately on the Syrian government, even though it happened in a combat zone, both sides could have done it, and no neutral observers were there. Admitted the Syrian government had declared Sarin stocks, and Sarin is not easily to get or fabricate. BUT the secret services of the West had worrying intelligence in that year that groups of "moderate" terrorists made efforts to get their hands on Sarin (or the components and make their own). It was clear within very short time that indeed Sarin had been released. The laboratory in Portond Down, England analyzed the samples- and informed Obama that the Sarin used in that attack DID NOT MATCH the stocks of military grade Sarin of the Syrian government. It could have well been a rouge attempt by the jihadists (which also made sense politically and militarily, they could hope to draw in the U.S. more - they were losing). Ray McGovern: Putin helped Obama out of the mousetrap regarding "red line" and the U.S. starting open war against Syria. So the samples of blood (maybe tissue or urine) showing traces of both substances ??? Not plausible. One claim of the U.S. government - we have blood samples with traces of chorine and Sarin ...and then we hear no more of it .... even though they CAN find out the fingerprint of Sarin and that can give valuable hints. Not plausible.
    2
  34. 2
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. What we do know is that the White Helmets posted video footage that showed alleged victims being hosed down with water in a hospital. Now that was a setup. Cookies and dates were promised (there was a food shortage) so the children came. The assembled crowd got the water treatment after someone shouted "Chemical attack" and everyone sprung into hectic action. (At least the children got the cookies and dates later). One of the boys that found himself hosed down and appeared in the video was indentified within a few days. He had no need for being rinsed down and was quite perplexed - he had not been exposed to any dangerous substance. About 1 week later he, his father (who had to search for him in the hospital for some time) and approx. 8 other people (at least one member of staff of that hospital) travelled to The Hague in the Netherlands to testify before a committee and the press (no we do not know that anyone was exposed to chlorine that day, certainly no one in that video that was circulated worldwide). Whoever filmed that footage and posted it must have KNOWN that it was a) a manipulated situation to create a panic that could be filmed to fabricate "evidence" OR b) it was luckily only a false alarm and some helpers were erring on the side of caution (everybody gets rinsed down, we evaluate later). The video was posted ANYWAY w/o correction. As "proof" for a chemical attack - of course by the Syrian government. If you look at the video, only children and young men (which is typical for White Helmet videos). So if I am benign - there were quite willing to spread misleading/false videos to back up a claim they had made.
    1
  48. 1
  49. Bill Clinton liked that - he had so many highyl paid advisors, of course they KNEW crime rate was dropping. Political point were to be made screw minorities and teenagers in difficult circumstances (imagine living in an area where the gangs provide security and order - sort of. Often enought he police COLLUDED WITH THEM. (see Serpico story - he was a cop from New York, he was lucky his "collegues" did not get him killed when he uncovered the truth. - the Clinton's were not really FOR black people. When it was easy and could garner them votes (fishing for the moderate Republicans) they were thrown under the bus. - the Clinton campaign tried a few racial stabs against Obama as well. They could not stoop the Republican levels (I think it may even have been the Ds that triggered the birther affair - not sure about it - and of course the bigots ran with it). They for sure launched a photo where Obama wears a traditional garment and cap. In the mind of the feeble that should trigger associations with him being a Muslim. He made a visit likely as Senator - it was either in Africa or Asia and likely in a Muslim majority country. There are often folkloristic events organized for the visitor and often the guest is invited to wear a traditional garment too. Of course the polite visitor will be a good sport, accept the offer and pose for photos with a smile. The Clinton campaign could not directly use the photo against him - but they shoved it over to someone else and hoped it would get traction. Well, their role in it came up.
    1
  50. 1