Comments by "Fumble_ Brewski" (@fumble_brewski5410) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

  1. 265
  2. 181
  3. 159
  4. 120
  5. 108
  6. 88
  7. 67
  8. 66
  9. 64
  10. 58
  11. 57
  12. 48
  13. 39
  14. 36
  15. 34
  16. 26
  17. 24
  18. 23
  19. 23
  20. 21
  21. 19
  22. 19
  23. 18
  24. 18
  25. 18
  26. 18
  27. 17
  28. 17
  29. 15
  30. 15
  31. 14
  32. 14
  33. 11
  34. 10
  35. 10
  36. 10
  37. 9
  38. 9
  39. 8
  40. 8
  41. 8
  42. 8
  43. 8
  44. 7
  45. 7
  46. 7
  47. 7
  48. 7
  49. 6
  50. 6
  51. 6
  52. 5
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. For ONCE in his life, JB has a valid point. Russia HAS to take Ukraine in order to secure the choke point(s) she formerly held during her days as the USSR. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia held all 9 (land) choke points. After the breakup, Russia was reduced to only 1. As a land power, Russia is inherently vulnerable. It sits on the European plain with few natural barriers to stop an enemy coming from the west. East of the Carpathian Mountains, the plain pivots southward, and the door to Russia opens. It should be no surprise then that Russia’s national strategy is to move its frontier as far west as possible. The first tier of countries on the European Peninsula’s eastern edge—the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine—provide depth from which Russia can protect itself, and also provide additional economic opportunities. With regard to the current battle over Ukraine, the Russians have to assume that the Euro-American interest in creating a pro-Western regime has a purpose beyond Ukraine. From the Russian point of view, not only have they lost a critical buffer zone, but Ukrainian forces hostile to Russia have moved toward the Russian border. FYI, from Kharkiv to Moscow is only 648km (403 miles). At the same time, the West cannot assume that Russia—if it reclaims Ukraine—will stop there. Therefore, we are in the classic case where two forces assume the worst about each other. But Russia occupies the weaker position, having lost the first tier of the European Peninsula. It is struggling to maintain the physical integrity of the Motherland. Russia is a relatively poor nation. Therefore, it isn’t prosperity that binds the country together, but a shared idealized vision of and loyalty toward Mother Russia. And in this sense, there is a deep chasm between both Europe and the United States (which use prosperity as a justification for loyalty) and Russia (for whom loyalty derives from the power of the state and the inherent definition of being Russian). Russia must expand or die--it's as simple as that. And both parties know this to be true. Therefore, unless some type of peace treaty can be negotiated between all concerned parties, military conflict between the USA/NATO and Russia is inevitable. Have a nice day.
    4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. An electromagnetic field (EMF) is an area of moving electrical charges. Some EMFs, especially those involving ionizing radiation, can be harmful. For most people, exposure to EMFs occurs on a daily basis, as the fields are virtually everywhere. These fields can come from natural sources, such as thunderstorms, or they may be manufactured, as are radio waves, microwaves, and X-rays, for example. According to some "experts," EMFs from manufactured sources, such as microwaves, do not damage human health at the level of exposure that people experience on a day-to-day basis. However, there is no unanimity of opinion in this matter. There are two types of EMF. One has the capacity to break chemical bonds (ionizing) and the other does not (non-ionizing). Fields of ionizing radiation have higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths. The energy from this type of radiation can remove electrons from atoms, including those comprising water and living tissue. This breaks chemical bonds. In the human body, high doses of ionizing radiation can prompt unstable atoms called free radicals to cause oxidative damage. Some more common sources of ionizing radiation are gamma rays, which can help treat cancer, and X-rays. Visible light exists toward the middle of the spectrum, marking the dividing line between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. High-band 5G uses frequencies of 24–47 GHz, near the bottom of the millimeter wave band, although higher frequencies may be used in the future. The spectrum ranging from 24.25 to 29.5 GHz has been the most licensed and deployed 5G mmWave spectrum range in the world. These high-band frequencies have the potential to adversely affect human health, according to some "experts." Health concerns aside, the introduction of 5G has created some cybersecurity risks, notes the U.S. Department of Homeland and Security. One fear is malicious software and hardware being introduced into the 5G supply chain. Plus, 5G uses more information than previous technologies, which leaves more room for error. Because of these concerns, the department has developed a set of strategic standards designed to mitigate risk. While concerns regarding hackers using 5G to steal data or too many people texting in-flight are valid, when it comes to potential effects on your health, the evidence goes both ways. The fact that 5G technology has been rolled out without sufficient studies on how it may impact human health is a major red flag.
    4
  68. 4
  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. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  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.  @Nikosi9  "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) So, I guess that you have two options, friend. Either you humble yourself before the Almighty and acknowledge him for who he is. Or, you take your place with the rest of those foolish people that deny Him. The choice is yours. God isn't going to drag anyone kicking and screaming into his kingdom. It's not that people CAN'T believe in God--it's that they WON'T believe. Or to quote renowned British biologist, scholar and humanist, Sir Julian Huxley, "I suppose the reason we (atheists) leaped at (Darwin's) The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." Well, I can't agree with his decision, but I have to at least acknowledge his honesty and candor. As a former agnostic myself, the reason I resisted coming to faith in God wasn't for some "intellectual" or esoteric reasons about his existence and reality. It was, as is probably the case with most so-called "atheists," that I rebelled at the idea of my having to be accountable to any higher power or authority, from whom there is no appeal or escape. Why, how dare God judge ME, of all people! The idea of me seeking for God was akin to the idea of a mouse searching for a cat. I wanted no part of a holy and righteous Creator. But then the grace (unmerited favor) of God sought me out and revealed my abject condition and demonstrated his love toward this wretched man, in that while I was yet a sinner, Christ died for ME. But, one may ask, how does one actually believe? Romans 10:9-10 has the answer: "...that if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved, for with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." BTW, I checked just this morning, and, yep, God is still there. Cheers.
    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. 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. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. Germany has long had the most restriction-free and consumer-oriented healthcare system in Europe. Patients are allowed to seek almost any type of care they wish whenever they want it. The German system is a multi-payer healthcare system (NOTE: not a single-payer system like U.S. MediCare, or the NHS in the UK), paid for by a combination of statutory health insurance and private health insurance. As of 2009, health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany, no exceptions. But German citizens are free to choose among a combination of public and/or private non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. IOW, the employer and employee each pay 50% of the total premium(s). This is a far cry from the monstrosity system that Bernie Sanders is advocated, which would have bankrupted the USA in short order. The Netherlands and Switzerland have systems very similar to the American Affordable Care Act (ACA), in that health insurance is mandated (and strictly enforced) to all citizens, but insurance is not provided by the government. Citizens are free to purchase insurance through whatever company they choose. Just like the ACA, insurance premiums are partially funded through subsidies provided by the government (through taxes) so that policies are truly affordable for everyone. Then you have a system like Denmark's, which is your typical tax-funded state-run universal health care system. Denmark provides “free” health care to all residents, funded through taxes. But at what price? The Danish health care system is not cheap. According to OECD’s Health Data 2009, Denmark’s health cost per person, public and private, was $3,512. However, Denmark has some of the highest taxes in the world, and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. By contrast, for tax year 2021, the top marginal U.S. rate is 37% (on incomes over $612,000), and very few actually fall into that category. The married filing jointly couples in the U.S. pay a marginal rate of 22% on incomes between $81,050 - $172,750. Essentially, half of what the Danes pay. How many Americans would be willing to double their tax burden in order to mimic the Danish healthcare system? You tell me. Personally, I'd favor the German-style system, as it delivers the most for the least amount of money.
    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. As for the supposed Biblical claim (for zionism), Jewish Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss explains: “Zionism is only around 100 years old. It is the transformation from religion to nationalism, to materialism created by non-religious Jews who hated their religion. The reason why they use the name Israel, the Star of David, hijacking, stealing the identity of Judaism and the Jewish people is in order to gain a legitimacy for their existence that should lead people to say, ‘oh, it is God given to them’ and that they should use fear and intimidate people from speaking out against their actions because they will call those that do anti-Semitic; it couldn’t be anything further from the Truth.” Zionists used two major justifications for occupying Palestine: 1) The Biblical claim of Palestine belonging exclusively to the Jews; 2) The Persecution of the Jews in Europe. The true descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were commanded by G-d to remain in the (gentile) nations to which they had been scattered by divine decree. There will yet be a future regathering of dispersed Israel, not by military or political machinations, but by a sovereign act of HaShem. See Deut. 30:1-6, Isa. 41:8-9, Isa. 43:5-6, and especially Ezek. 28:25-26, which reads: "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'When I have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am hallowed in them in the sight of the Gentiles, THEN they will dwell in their own land which I gave to My servant Jacob. And they will dwell safely there, build houses, and plant vineyards; yes, they will dwell securely, when I execute judgments on all those around them who despise them. Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God.'" I ask you now, is Israel currently dwelling securely in peace? Are they that all-righteous nation of which the scriptures speak? The answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO. In Isaiah 19:24 we read, "In that day Israel will be the third part with Egypt and Assyria (Iraq), a blessing in the midst of the earth." Has that happened yet? The answer is obvious.
    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. So-called "capitalism" and so-called "communism" are but two opposite sides of the same rotten coin, which is why each philosophy uses the other to define itself. In its present form, capitalism (as opposed to entrepreneurial free enterprise) promotes the consolidation of economic assets and power into the hands of a small, powerful, private oligarchy. Whereas communism promotes the consolidation of the aforementioned assets and power into the hands of an elitist State oligarchy, such as existed in the former USSR from 1917-1991. Do a search on the term "nomenklatura" for further proof. Same dance, different players, same end results. Do not suppose that the so-called "capitalist" giants of the 20th century were at all opposed to Soviet communism. Quite the contrary. Henry Ford, for example, had a very cordial (and profitable) relationship with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. Monopolists, whether capitalist or communist, think alike and coexist with one another quite amiably. Thomas Jefferson's view on the economy of the new United States was that the federal economy should be kept "rigorously frugal and simple." He envisioned the states being able to run their own economies with minimal interference from Washington policy makers, and he opposed the establishment of a central bank. A far cry from today's warfare/welfare system that is the modern USA. Gen. Robert E. Lee echoed Jefferson's sentiments many years later: “The consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.”
    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. All hope abandon, ye that live in California. After having lived in the (not so) Golden State for nearly 40 years, we finally gave up on trying to adapt to the "progressively" worsening conditions. Which? Ever increasing taxes and bonded indebtedness by the left-wing (Democrat) state government; adding more benefits & services for illegals (oops, I mean undocumented immigrants). Governor Gavin (The Nuisance) Newsom--Nancy Pelosi's great nephew through marriage--is back living in the 1970's, knowing only how to increase taxes and the size of government. Although California has the highest corporate, personal, sales and gasoline taxes in the nation, infrastructure is crumbling. But at the same time, the legislature decided to fund the "high-speed rail" train to nowhere pork-barrel project, which ballooned from its original budget of $25 billion to nearly $70 billion, at last count. They finally gave up and suspended the entire hair brained project. Air pollution, urban sprawl, homelessness, crime and gang violence are all out of control. We said, "Enough!" 10 years ago, and relocated to *********, and have never had any cause to regret our decision. Our adopted home has a much smaller, less intrusive state government, along with modest, reasonable taxes. And the violent crime rate is minuscule compared to CA. People here can still leave their cars unlocked at the local shopping mall--I don't, too many years of living in CA, I guess. Any middle class people that still persist in staying in California deserve what's coming to them.
    1
  250. As for the supposed Biblical claim (by Zionists), Jewish Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss explains: “Zionism is only around 100 years old. It is the transformation from religion to nationalism, to materialism created by non-religious Jews who hated their religion. The reason why they use the name Israel, the Star of David, hijacking, stealing the identity of Judaism and the Jewish people is in order to gain a legitimacy for their existence that should lead people to say, ‘oh, it is God given to them’ and that they should use fear and intimidate people from speaking out against their actions because they will call those that do anti-Semitic; it couldn’t be anything further from the Truth.” Zionists used two major justifications for occupying Palestine: 1) The Biblical claim of Palestine belonging exclusively to the Jews; 2) The Persecution of the Jews in Europe. The true descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were commanded by G-d to remain in the (Gentile) nations to which they had been scattered by divine decree. There will yet be a future regathering of dispersed Israel, not by military or political machinations, but by a sovereign act of HaShem. See Deut. 30:1-6, Isa. 41:8-9, Isa. 43:5-6, and especially Ezek. 28:25-26, which reads: "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'When I have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am hallowed in them in the sight of the Gentiles, then they will dwell in their own land which I gave to My servant Jacob. And they will dwell safely there, build houses, and plant vineyards; yes, they will dwell securely, when I execute judgments on all those around them who despise them. Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God.'" I ask you now, is Israel currently dwelling securely in peace? Are they that all-righteous nation of which the scriptures speak? The answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO. In Isaiah 19:24 we read, "In that day Israel will be the third part with Egypt and Assyria (Iraq), a blessing in the midst of the earth." Has that happened yet? The answer is obvious.
    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
  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. As for the supposed Biblical claim (made by Zionists), Jewish Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss explains: “Zionism is only around 100 years old. It is the transformation from religion to nationalism, to materialism created by non-religious Jews who hated their religion. The reason why they use the name Israel, the Star of David, hijacking, stealing the identity of Judaism and the Jewish people is in order to gain a legitimacy for their existence that should lead people to say, ‘oh, it is God given to them’ and that they should use fear and intimidate people from speaking out against their actions because they will call those that do anti-Semitic; it couldn’t be anything further from the Truth.” Zionists used two major justifications for occupying Palestine: 1) The Biblical claim of Palestine belonging exclusively to the Jews; 2) The Persecution of the Jews in Europe. The true descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were commanded by G-d to remain in the (Gentile) nations to which they had been scattered by divine decree. There will yet be a future regathering of dispersed Israel, not by military or political machinations, but by a sovereign act of HaShem. See Deut. 30:1-6, Isa. 41:8-9, Isa. 43:5-6, and especially Ezek. 28:25-26, which reads: "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'When I have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am hallowed in them in the sight of the Gentiles, then they will dwell in their own land which I gave to My servant Jacob. And they will dwell safely there, build houses, and plant vineyards; yes, they will dwell securely, when I execute judgments on all those around them who despise them. Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God.'" I ask you now, is Israel currently dwelling securely in peace? Are they that all-righteous nation of which the Scriptures speak? The answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO. In Isaiah 19:24 we read, "In that day Israel will be the third part with Egypt and Assyria (Iraq), a blessing in the midst of the earth." Has that happened yet? The answer is obvious.
    1
  303. 1
  304. 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. Habeas corpus, from Medieval Latin, lit. 'let you have the body'; in law: "[we, a Court, command] that you have the body [of the detainee brought before us]") is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful. The United States inherited habeas corpus from the English common law. In England, the writ was issued in the name of the monarch. When the original thirteen American colonies declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Of course, nowadays, the government itself gets to define the terms contained in the clause, especially what determines "public safety." Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and Reconstruction for some places or types of cases. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt suspended habeas corpus. Following the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush attempted to place Guantanamo Bay detainees outside of the jurisdiction of habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court of the United States overturned this action in Boumediene v. Bush.
    1
  329. 1
  330. As for the Jews' supposed Biblical claim, Jewish Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss explains: “Zionism is only around 100 years old. It is the transformation from religion to nationalism, to materialism created by non-religious Jews who hated their religion. The reason why they use the name Israel, the Star of David, hijacking, stealing the identity of Judaism and the Jewish people is in order to gain a legitimacy for their existence that should lead people to say, ‘oh, it is God given to them’ and that they should use fear and intimidate people from speaking out against their actions because they will call those that do anti-Semitic; it couldn’t be anything further from the Truth.” Zionists used two major justifications for occupying Palestine: 1) The Biblical claim of Palestine belonging exclusively to the Jews; 2) The Persecution of the Jews in Europe. The true descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were commanded by G-d to remain in the (gentile) nations to which they had been scattered by divine decree. There will yet be a future regathering of dispersed Israel, not by military or political machinations, but by a sovereign act of HaShem. See Deut. 30:1-6, Isa. 41:8-9, Isa. 43:5-6, and especially Ezek. 28:25-26, which reads: "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'When I have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am hallowed in them in the sight of the Gentiles, then they will dwell in their own land which I gave to My servant Jacob. And they will dwell safely there, build houses, and plant vineyards; yes, they will dwell securely, when I execute judgments on all those around them who despise them. Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God.'" I ask you now, is Israel currently dwelling securely in peace? Are they that all-righteous nation of which the scriptures speak? The answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO. In Isaiah 19:24 we read, "In that day Israel will be the third part with Egypt and Assyria (Iraq), a blessing in the midst of the earth." Has that happened yet? The answer is obvious.
    1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337.  @dnickaroo3574  Palmerston was a British nationalist; he said that the country had no permanent allies, only permanent interests. As such, he may have encouraged liberalism in those countries which were perceived as natural enemies of the British crown, but he never supported liberalism in Great Britain. His thought was that liberalism, if made to flourish in countries such as Russia, France and Austria (all enemies of GB), would tend to weaken those nations, and thus serve to strengthen British foreign objectives. The Reform Bills of 1831 and 1832 were more considerable than Palmerston liked, and he tried to modify them. Failing, he blamed “the stupid old Tory party” for making them necessary by refusing minor concessions, emphasized the “final” nature of the 1832 Act, and proclaimed his confidence that the landed interest would continue to prevail in politics as he thought it should. From 1849 to 1865 he came to personify the opposition of the landsmen and many of the middle classes to the enfranchisement of trade unionists and to resist fiscal and legislative assaults on landed property, opining (with regard to Ireland) that “tenant right was landlord’s wrong.” Lord Palmerston, who became prime minister for the first time in 1855, stood out as the dominant political personality of mid-Victorian Britain precisely because he was opposed to dramatic change and because he knew through long experience how to maneuver politics within the half-reformed constitution. Doesn't sound like much of a "liberal" to me.
    1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1