Comments by "Remy Lebeau" (@remyllebeau77) on "TED"
channel.
-
507
-
75
-
72
-
69
-
61
-
55
-
47
-
34
-
31
-
27
-
24
-
23
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
+jdogsful
"kkk affiliated, .... historically oppressive, notoriously racist"
Oh, so you have no idea that the democrats started the kkk, and republicans fought (against democrats) for freeing the slaves and civil rights on into the 20th century. The supposed party switch never happened, because less than 5% of racist democrats and republicans changed parties.
From CNN polotics:
"The act had the longest (democrat) filibuster in U.S. Senate history, and after a bloody, long civil rights struggle, the Senate passed the act 73-27 in July 1964. It became law less than a year after President John F. Kennedy's assassination.
Here are a few surprising facts about how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law:
1. More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats
In the 1960s, Congress was divided on civil rights issues -- but not necessarily along party lines.
"Most people don't realize that today at all -- in proportional terms, a far higher percentage of Republicans voted for this bill than did Democrats, because of the way the Southerners were divided," said Purdum.
The division was geographic. The Guardian's Harry J. Enten broke down the vote, showing that more than 80% of Republicans in both houses voted in favor of the bill, compared with more than 60% of Democrats. When you account for geography, according to Enten's article, 90% of lawmakers from states that were in the Union during the Civil War supported the bill compared with less than 10% of lawmakers from states that were in the Confederacy."
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Myn It comes with the underlying assumption that black people are usually not very well spoken. Otherwise there would be no reason to exclaim "Hey, you speak English very well!"
It is like saying "Wow, you haven't robbed anyone today, good job!" It has an air of condescension, don't you think?
It is also racist to mention general trends and stereotypes in the black community like single motherhood, a disproportionate rate of abortion at 700 or more per day with more being aborted in NYC than were being born, and of the 12,000 gun homicides per year, 4,000 of the victims are young black men. It doesn't matter how truthful the trends and statistics are, it is racist.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
+MRLONG758 No. I specifically said creating a straw man and avoiding answering the points (in one of my previous posts) was a bad path to choose. I never suggesting helping the poor was bad. In fact, I proved that in many (and the majority) states, they are ALREADY receiving MORE total funding.
Your idea of leveling the playing field is not an improvement overall, it is a zero sum effort, and it could actually be detrimental to the people with the best chance to make the most out of education.
If your idea of treating everyone equally is so great, why do they give the good scholarships to the best performing students? Cause screw those stupid students right?
No, it is the same reason that you don't give a million dollars for stock investing to someone that doesn't have a clue what to do, you give it to the smartest and most experienced guy that has the best chance to make a profit. You want to use resources wisely instead of throwing money at a (not the smartest) person and hoping they can do the same as someone that is smart. No it isn't fair, and life isn't and shouldn't be fair.
Life is horrible and cruel, and anything and anyone in your life that helps it be less so, is precious. The sooner liberals learn this lesson, the better. Instead, most liberals like you and the lady in the video are determined to place yourselves in your own "torment of Tantalus", constantly fighting an uphill battle against reality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dimetropteryx
"it doesn't change the facts"
Why don't you present some instead of the usual insults and name calling that I've come to expect from leftists?
"It's neither."
Then perhaps you should state your definition of Tu Quoque and Red Herring?
Saying "nobody's good at fixing things" is a form of Tu Quoque, because instead of addressing the argument about gov't, you brush it off by saying everyone has the same problem.
Similarly, bringing up the private sector is a Red Herring to avoid talking about the problems of gov't.
"That's the reality you're going to have to deal with."
You are only admitting to delusion when you ignore the millions brought out of poverty in China after economic reforms in 1978.
"I understand and can employ science and facts"
Large claims for someone who has yet to demonstrate anything but insolence and doesn't understand bias or refuses to acknowledge it. Someone who has an "education" should know better than to repeat back claims like a parrot while avoiding the argument. I'll bet your education doesn't come close to a PHD in Ecology, like the former founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore.
"ignoring reality"
God forbid anyone disagrees with leftist dogma, science is about fanatical devotion to approved dictates. No wait, that isn't science at all. Real science should be objective, test the hypothesis, and welcome debate. It should not stand on a debunked myth of a 97% consensus.
"they weren't"
How would you know? You are either blissfully ignorant, or deliberately lying.
"Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data." - climatologist and NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer.
He isn't the only one. 300 scientists have asked the gov't to investigate NOAA.
Furthermore, climate alarmists consistently produce faulty predictions.
See Hansen's 1988 predictions vs NASA satellite data global air temperature, and 90 CMIP5 Climate models vs. observations.
+JBeags I don't deny that the climate changes, it changes all the time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aviri Char Are you insane? I have been logical in every post, and it is NOT irrelevant if many of the advances have been bankrolled by foreign aid, and as others have pointed out, Costa Rica just happens to have good geography to take advantage of hydroelectric and geothermal. That obviously doesn't translate to everywhere else, or as the description puts it "a world committed to clean energy in all sectors".
"distorting what anyone in the video..."
I am not here to blindly agree with the video like a blithering idiot. That is the whole point of bringing up an argument, to question the self-proclaimed values and the green party kumbaya feelings that want to be perceived as valid, but could easily be undermined by reality, something you obviously have a problem with because you think it's "some agenda of your own no one really cares about".
If that is really your attitude, feel free to leave. In fact I'll even help you out, especially when you refuse to be civil and instead prefer to use pathetic insults.
"The mention of the military abolition was an analogy,"
Yes of course it was. I didn't miss that part, but apparently you did miss the part where she specifically said that they "turned military spending into social spending...".
"keep snarkily sniping at other people"
Well now you are just repeating my accusation like some kind of deranged parrot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Snitching is not the most community positive act"
The goal is to punish bad people in the community so that you will have little to no litter. I don't care how some communities feel about snitching, we are not talking about someone trying to make a living selling drugs, just people too pathetic to put their trash in the right place.
"There is already a fine, (<= 1000 dollars), for littering in California. People still litter in California."
Just because there is a fine, does not mean it is actively enforced or that it is easy to catch people in the act.
"There is a large production of disposable contents"
This results in recycling, production costs, and landfill problems. But it is not the fault of the companies what their customers decide to do afterwards. They shouldn't have to accommodate for the irresponsibility of others.
"There is problem 2: unaware people litter (kids on the school and straws)"
That is a minority of people who litter, and the school should have taught the kids better anyways.
"people could think of a way to "let's reward people for disposing trash properly'. "
I disagree. You reward people for going above and beyond, not for NOT doing a bad thing.
"Wouldn't it be nicer that instead of "LET'S PUNISH/SHAME THEM"
Yes many things could be nicer in an ideal world, but we don't live in a perfect world and bad people deserve punishment.
"you can't take non consent photos of people"
Maybe your country won't honor the right of photography in public (even though most modern countries spy on the citizens all the time), but mine still sort of allows it, much to the chagrin of overzealous and abusive security guards and police everywhere.
"the time frame for a "litter act photo" is absolutely small"
Yes it is, that is why I'm thinking mostly of video capture applications that are always on. Like cameras in cars to catch the guy in front of you throwing out trash.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1