Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 12, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:54:50

Viva & Nate Live Stream - THE GREAT DEBATE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	I remembered, people, and I did the good intro with the back, with the dog.
	Winston, what do you have to say to everybody?
	Yes.
	Nibble my earlobe.
	It's been a while.
	Everyone, if you can look into Winston's eye.
	Let's see if we can get it here.
	You'll see the milky part.
	If we can do it.
	That's not going to happen.
	Anyhow, I'm wondering if his eyesight is...
	As blind as he was, if he's not getting blinder, because he seems to be getting stuck on the stairs a little more often than he did three months ago.
	All right, people.
	How is the audio?
	Actually, you know what?
	Wait for the audio until we bring Nate in.
	And who said gross?
	Who said gross?
	If I want the dog to nibble my ear, or I want to kiss his face, or I want to pick the little koozies out of his eye, it's not gross.
	It's nature.
	Nature.
	This is going to be fun, people.
	First of all...
	To dispel any rumors, to quail everyone's concerns, Barnes is fine.
	He just has the virus, or a virus.
	I don't know if he actually knows what he has, but he strongly suspects he might have come down with that which everyone on Earth is eventually going to come down with, and he's resting.
	And the funny thing is, we've all gotten so crazy, and I can tell you from my own personal experience that...
	Once you find out that you no longer have just a cold and that it's the cold, you immediately begin to cause your own psychological and physiological stress.
	But we forget that once upon a time, we used to all get sick and it was a question of toughing it out and not isolating it out.
	It would be, take the medication because, you know, doctor mom doesn't get a day off.
	And now it's, I'm going to die.
	I need to isolate and hang out in my basement for 10 days and feed my kid under a door.
	And I was trying to find the video from two years ago, right before COVID, when I think I might have, when everyone thinks they might have had it.
	And I had 103 fever.
	I had chills for five days.
	I had such a bad headache.
	I thought I had, I was Googling meningitis.
	I was Googling like...
	Toxic shock syndrome that you can get from having touched dead animals.
	Because I was convinced that I had contracted some sort of deadly virus from the fish that I had hacked out of the ice to use as bait.
	I think I did some Viva Family videos at the time.
	And I remember the video I did.
	I couldn't find it.
	But it's when they edited the Donald Trump scene out of the CBC airing of Home Alone.
	I should have googled CBC.
	That would have brought it up.
	And I remember being so sick that I was having stabbing pains in my head.
	I had a cough that lasted for two weeks, but I still got out videos during the day.
	Faked it and made the videos and then went back to shivering and sweating in bed.
	So Barnes is fine.
	I've been checking in and that's it.
	But tonight, we're going to have the great debate with Nate the Great.
	And it's not going to be on Twitter because I hate Twitter.
	I hate Twitter.
	What an imagination!
	I was googling toxic things that I could have gotten from dead animals because I hacked a minnow out of the ice to use it as a minnow.
	I got some ice in my mouth, so I thought maybe I had unleashed a historical plague.
	What else?
	I was just googling the standard stuff.
	Encephalitis, meningitis.
	Imagination is one thing.
	Chronic neuroses and OCD and hypochondria.
	Yeah, hypochondria are the others.
	No offense to Nate.
	Ooh, this is good.
	He's in the background.
	He can see this, and I can needle him by not bringing him in while I read it.
	No offense to Nate.
	I'm not...
	I am sure he acts in good faith, but his ideology will lead to fascism.
	As always, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
	And here, I'll pull a little Scott Adams in terms of...
	There's an element of mind reading in here as to what Nate's ideology is.
	I'm not sure that he has an underlying ideology, which implies that he's trying to push his beliefs on others.
	He's just arguing that you shouldn't object because it's already been in place in one form or another.
	But we'll get there.
	We'll get there.
	I'm going to do the standard disclaimers.
	I'm aware of it.
	Not something I'm going to cover for a number of reasons.
	I'm aware of it.
	I'm skeptical.
	I do not think it's going to go the places that some people would love it to go.
	In fact, I think it's going to get tossed for reasons that involve the penalty that they are seeking.
	When you get into this realm, you know, not optimistic.
	But okay, so tonight on the menu, Nate the Great and the debate.
	We're going to talk about the Twitter war.
	I hate Twitter because it makes everything seem like really antagonistic, really mean and sassy and everyone's like needling.
	And it even reads that way sometimes.
	I go back and read my tweets.
	Some of them are intended to be that way.
	Like when I call a politician a useless waste of political space because two years into the pandemic, they think they're freaking geniuses by suggesting...
	Hmm, maybe we should be distinguishing between hospitalized with COVID and hospitalized from COVID.
	Maybe we should be distinguishing between died with COVID versus died from...
	Two years in, you're asking these questions, you're an idiot.
	And I'm not weighing my words anymore.
	You're an idiot.
	Now, when it comes to people I like and respect, sometimes things just read badly.
	And it frustrates me.
	So I think we're going to do it.
	Okay, standard disclaimers.
	Don't trim.
	Are you talking about me or the dog?
	Either way, neither is going to happen for a while.
	Oh, we're on Rumble.
	We're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	I'll go check to see if we haven't gotten any chats there.
	Super Chats, 30% goes to YouTube.
	If you don't like that, Rumble takes 20%.
	They're called Rumble Rants.
	So if you support us, I very much appreciate it.
	It's not an expectation.
	And in as much as it's not an expectation, it's also not a right of entry into the conversation if it's an abusive super chat or whatever.
	If I miss it and you're going to be miffed, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling miffed, yada, yada, you know the rules.
	No medical advice.
	Tonight especially, there will be no medical advice.
	This is a discussion.
	It's not even so much of a debate.
	It's a discussion that is better to have viva voce than twitter twoce.
	What else?
	No legal advice.
	No undermining the election fortification advice.
	Let the salt flow, people.
	Adonis King, that is one heck of a skin fade you have in your avatar there, sir.
	Like both.
	Okay, Wombat says, Viva question.
	Do theosophical camps in the U.S. have a right to require guests have a shot or negative COVID test within a day of going to camp, or even when there is no correlation?
	I don't know what the rules are in the States.
	I just know what the rules are in Canada, and that's status quo now.
	Kids cannot go to camp.
	Unless they're vaccinated.
	Alright.
	People, let us bring in not just Nate the Great, but Nate, my friend.
	And I want everyone understanding that we made jib and jab on the Twitterverse.
	And it's not just that we're friends.
	I like Nate.
	One of the greatest things that has come out of my YouTube career was meeting Nate, Eric Hundley, Jeremy, you know who I'm talking about, although not a public figure, and a bunch of other people.
	With that said, Nate, how goes the battle?
	It goes well.
	First, I want to say, I'm actually happy because I like debate.
	I've always liked to debate.
	And I think sometimes, like you said on Twitter, people, they take it too seriously.
	Sometimes when you take the counterpoints, you're right.
	Things just read poorly.
	But, you know, and there's no nuance on Twitter, right?
	150 characters.
	You really can't say a lot.
	So hopefully, you know, people are getting the nuance of my argument and understand where I'm coming from.
	Because for some reason, a lot of people have been, like, messaging me.
	Nate, I hear your four mandates.
	I'm like, when do I have a four mandate?
	I'm just making the counterarguments.
	But...
	But I understand where people can get that, so hopefully it'll clear up a lot of things tonight.
	But no, I do want to say this, though.
	You, Eric, you know, I grew up, just so everybody understands my background, I was doing my year-end review two years ago when I started this whole YouTube game.
	Viva was the one that literally held my hand and helped me through this.
	I remember, I was talking to my mom, and I remember when I was a kid in Harlem, we grew up believing.
	Believe me, because we were told that all Republicans who were white were racist, were inherently racist.
	That's what we were told.
	We were literally told that when we were younger.
	And a personal story.
	When I was, I was about in like 8th or 9th grade or something like that.
	I know I was really young.
	And my mom, obviously, she was drug addicted.
	And we didn't have anything for Thanksgiving.
	So we were going to the parking lot at a Winn-Dixie.
	If you ever live in Florida, it's a supermarket called Winn-Dixie.
	So we're at Winn-Dixie.
	And we're in the supermarket, in the parking lot, begging for cash.
	And the reason why is because we were going to have cereal for Thanksgiving dinner.
	And we were happy for the cereal.
	So we're going to have cereal for Thanksgiving dinner.
	So we're begging.
	My mom is over there begging, but she's really begging to get some money for drugs.
	So we're begging to get the cereal.
	And I'll never forget it.
	This white couple sees me and my brother begging.
	And they look at us.
	And you know when you can tell somebody is shocked?
	I can see it in this woman's eyes.
	We were getting money for Thanksgiving dinner.
	She was shocked.
	She started pulling her husband and pulling her coat.
	And you could see that we're having a serious discussion.
	And the next thing I know, my mom grabs us up and she's like, let's go home.
	Let's just go home.
	So we're like, where are you taking us home?
	Two hours later, this white couple comes to our house with a full thanks.
	Thanksgiving dinner, right?
	I'm talking about ham, turkey.
	I'm talking about the biggest Thanksgiving dinner I've ever had, right?
	It was insane.
	And this guy was telling us about President George.
	George W. Bush was the president of the time, and we were, you know, watching football games.
	And I remember in that moment, my uncle came by, like, maybe like a month later, and I remember he kept saying, like, he starts saying, you know, all white people are bad.
	You can't trust them.
	And I remember saying, That's not true.
	You know, when Thanksgiving, you didn't come around.
	It was somebody, you know, these people who didn't even know us came around and helped us.
	But that is what started my transformation from being...
	And that's what I think a lot of times when we talk about left and right, the left, and even my left-wing friends now, I notice it.
	They see everything with the lens of race.
	Rittenhouse, for instance.
	Black and white.
	Rittenhouse is white, so he must be a racist.
	Instead of taking that lens off and seeing everything for what it is.
	So for people to try to understand why I look at each situation the way I do, it's because of that.
	Because I was fooled.
	I was indoctrinated to believe half the country was out to get me.
	And I was indoctrinated to hate my country, to be embarrassed of America.
	But now I've overcome all that.
	So if I do say something coarse or...
	But understand, every day I'm battling against that.
	To become the person who I am.
	So that's what my channel is about.
	That's what I'm about.
	I'm about growth.
	And I'm going to make you mad.
	I'm going to say things that you don't like.
	But that's all part of my growth.
	And we've been on one hell of a ride, have we, Viva?
	I was going to say, if anyone has not seen our first live stream, and I think I shared this anecdote about the assessment of that live stream.
	This was before Nate even wanted to be well publicly known.
	So we do this live stream.
	Nate's...
	This story and others about Nate's upbringing, and it was beautiful.
	Everything about it was beautiful in a tragic sense, but beautiful in the optimistic sense in that where you have gotten in life, from where you were, where you were born, an upbringing that is beyond what most people can imagine.
	We do that stream, and at one point I asked you where you worked as a professor, and you were reluctant to say, and then I remember thinking halfway through, holy cows!
	I have no way of vetting anything that Nate just said.
	This could have been a two-hour stream where I just got duped into believing his story.
	Then I started looking things up after the stream.
	I casually asked Nate for...
	I think it was when you gave me your real name, your full name.
	Then I then verified that you were, in fact, a member of the bar.
	Then I was like, holy cow, thank goodness.
	He's a lawyer.
	A lawyer would never lie.
	Then I was like, okay.
	Go back to that first stream, anybody who has never seen it.
	It was amazing.
	We met at a time, Nate, where I could not tag you on YouTube because you were under 1,000 subs.
	And when you made the shout out telling me I was wrong on Sandman, I shouted you back out but couldn't even tag you in the post.
	And look at where we are now.
	And we met once right before COVID.
	Yeah.
	You came to the house.
	It was fantastic.
	And that's the thing I think a lot of people don't get is that we have conversations.
	That are intellectual, but we don't get mad at each other.
	Like, when Viva says something, and I'm more than likely, if you don't see my Twitter thread, I'm more than likely to say, hey, I am wrong.
	How many times have I said, I am wrong, I didn't know, I didn't understand?
	And that's the way it should be.
	So I'm hoping everybody understands.
	This conference, even if it gets heated or not, it's always in that jest.
	And we're going to go away, still have a beer like I'm still having now, and call it a day.
	My only...
	My biggest concern is when we have our Twitter spats, my concern is that one of us is going to take it seriously, but that's not the bigger concern.
	It's that other people are going to think...
	Look, I tweeted out at LegalEagle today as a humorous joke, because LegalEagle was talking about some bizarre case where someone threw a salt...
	Oh, no, glitter.
	A couple of women threw glitter at a man and were charged with battery, and he said, oh, well, you know...
	He described the situation that, okay, well, they made contact when they threw the glitter, so it's not the glitter per se.
	It's throwing an object.
	And then I made a quip on Twitter.
	Well, if he had just, you know, if he had pulled their newspaper down, maybe they can argue with self-defense.
	And someone's going to read that with sass and not with the sincere humor that I intended it, because that's just the way Twitter is.
	But Nate...
	250 characters.
	250 characters and everything reads...
	Sassy and sarcasm translates.
	Poorly humor sometimes translates to serious.
	But Nate, before we get into the debate, the great debate, we got to do one Quebec decision, which is going to blow your mind.
	I'm going to cut this highlight and put it out tomorrow or maybe even later tonight because it's preposterous.
	We covered that story out of New York where a father was denied visitation rights because he was unvaccinated.
	The judge revised and retracted his own decision, faced with the public outlash.
	Same decision coming out of Quebec.
	I'm going to screen share.
	I'm not going to be able to see the comments, so this is going to be going naked for me, but let me do this.
	We'll do this quickly.
	10, 12 minutes max, maybe 15 when I say that.
	Share screen.
	Share screen.
	Go here like this.
	Go to Chrome tab, and then I go to the decision, which is in French, people.
	So everyone's going to get an...
	A French lesson they never asked for.
	This is Canly, by the way.
	This is our Canadian...
	It's not like Westlaw.
	This is just where we get decisions.
	Droits de la famille, which is family law.
	It's a short decision.
	It's a short decision, but it's...
	Nate, I want to see your reaction.
	It says, which is a safeguard order to be in effect until February 8, 2020.
	And my hope is that there will be...
	We have to show deference to the court, respect to the court, and this is not a question of, like, doxing, harassing, anything, period, full stop.
	This is a question of having public outcry, because if this decision stands, does not get appealed, or becomes precedent, you're not going to want to have kids in the province of Quebec, and probably by extension Canada.
	So, translating loosely and quickly, les partis sont les parents, the parents are, the party to the parents of a kid age 12, 12 and a half.
	There was a previous court order, paragraph 2, doesn't matter.
	On paragraph 3, it says, by a procedure entitled wanting to change the modalities of access, the father wants to review some of the terms.
	On her side, paragraph 4, the wife also wants a suspension of the rights of access of monsieur, the husband, or subsidiarily, that his rights be limited.
	And they're going to say why.
	Paragraph five says she motivates her request of suspension of access.
	I'm translating literally so it's going to sound a little awkward.
	Because she recently learned that he's not vaccinated against COVID-19.
	She adds, this is paragraph five, that he's a conspiracy theorist and an anti-vaxxer.
	Then we go paragraph six.
	It says at the hearing, the husband admits that he's not vaccinated.
	He equally admits, this is where it's going to blow your mind, people, that the kid is double vaccinated.
	And I'm not saying this to judge the kid, I'm saying this to judge the decision later on.
	So he's not vaccinated, but the kid is double vaccinated.
	Correct.
	He admits that the kid received two doses of the vaccine.
	Paragraph 7, he has some reservations about the vaccine, but he says, he assures the court that he Follows public health measures and doesn't leave his house very often.
	Paragraph 8, Facebook extracts, shows that he opposes the measures and the health measures.
	He published messages, Quebec Debout, which is a protest reportage.
	He published some reports of Radio Canada.
	He went to a protest.
	Exercises political freedom.
	That's what he's doing.
	Political freedom of speech.
	He says that masks, he apparently posted a post that says, les masks sont inutiles.
	Masks are useless.
	I'm not approving of that message.
	I'm just reading from the court document.
	Listen to this, paragraph 9. Le meilleur intérêt de l 'enfant doit guider le tribunal.
	The best interest of the child must guide the tribunal.
	That's what they always say.
	In this case, the real question is the following.
	Is it in the best interest of the child that the father should have access to the kid when he is not vaccinated against COVID-19?
	Let me just get to the part that's going to...
	That's going to be the determining factor?
	That's crazy.
	Is it in the best interest of the kid to see his father?
	The kid is double-vaxxed.
	The father is not.
	Okay, so here it says, oh yeah, it says, par ailleurs, paragraph 12. Some of his Facebook posts lead you to believe that he is effectively what we call a conspiracy theorist.
	And the court has strong reasons to doubt that he's respecting the health measures.
	This is, this is, but okay, listen to this, paragraph 13. That being said.
	The kid is vaccinated and benefits from certain protections against the virus.
	Is this enough to allow the kid to see the kid's father?
	Le tribunal estime que ce n 'est pas le cas.
	The court concludes that this is not the case.
	Wow.
	Wait until you hear this.
	Wow.
	In fact, it's judicial knowledge that the protection is not total.
	And it seems even reduced faced with the Omicron variant that is currently propagating its way through Quebec.
	It's also judicial knowledge that this variant, the Omicron, is highly contagious.
	Okay, paragraph 14. So he says, the risks of not being vaccinated are mostly for the people who are unvaccinated.
	And then the judge says, this is implicit knowledge that he acknowledges there's some benefit to being vaccinated, which makes his decision not to get vaccinated even more shocking.
	Well, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Before you go on.
	All right.
	So here in the United States, we have your medical information.
	No one can...
	You can't go and say, if I want to see my kids, or my wife can't go and say, well, he's not vaccinated, because my medical information is private.
	That's a medical decision that's private.
	Here it seems like the courts are allowed to go into your private medical, whether you're vaccinated or not, to determine...
	That doesn't make any sense.
	That's ridiculous.
	I don't think there's any limits to this now, especially since one...
	I mean, we're going to get into this, but this medical fact is being weaponized For family law.
	I mean, we've seen it in the States.
	It's crazy.
	They ask.
	If you don't answer, your silence would be an admission of guilt.
	You do answer honestly.
	They call you a conspiracy theorist because you might believe that these health measures are illogical, unscientific.
	If he does not agree with the curfew, when our own health minister said...
	There's no science behind it.
	I mean, is he a conspiracy?
	It's nuts.
	It's nuts.
	You'll see where this goes.
	Yeah.
	Let me see here.
	Okay.
	Paragraph 15. Normally, it would be in the child's best interest to have contact with the father.
	But it is not in the child's best interest to have contact with him when he is not vaccinated and he is opposed to the health measures.
	In the epidemiological context, the current epidemiological context, this is a court order, by the way.
	If this does not get overturned, this stands as some form of precedent.
	This is kind of crazy, man.
	I'm telling you, this is pretty crazy.
	Let me see here.
	I want to get to this.
	Let me be fair.
	paragraph 16, we must equally note that Madame lives with her partner and their children, who are four years old.
	So the court has to take into consideration the best interests of the children that the mother is staying with and they're not vaccinated.
	So the father is being denied access to his kid who is vaccinated because the mother has a new boyfriend who has two kids that are not vaccinated.
	And this is the logic we've been seeing left, right and center is that...
	You have to compel vaccination of those who can get vaccinated to protect those who can't get vaccinated.
	It's basically Sotomayor or whoever it was before the Supreme Court that raised that argument last Friday.
	Paragraph 17, under these circumstances, it's not in the interest of either of the three kids that the father can exercise his rights to access his own kid at the current time.
	Oh, and then listen to this.
	Paragraph 18. Toutefois, la suspension des accès de monsieur doit être pour une courte durée.
	So it can only be for a short period of time because the situation is evolving rapidly, as is the whole situation with Omicron.
	But where does it say that?
	And he can also get vaccinated.
	So if he decides to get vaccinated, they can re-evaluate this quarter.
	So this...
	You're talking about forced vaccination.
	My God!
	That's crazy!
	So if he can see his children, they've gone too far up there in Quebec.
	Like, come on.
	This is really ridiculous.
	Is this real, Viva?
	Is this real?
	This is real, dude.
	This is like insane.
	This is off the official website.
	People can get this decision.
	Wow.
	Here it says, Par ailleurs, la jurisprudence soumise par monsieur selon laquelle the case law submitted by the father pursuant to which the parent or the grandparent unvaccinated were suspended have to be distinguished because the current situation...
	So the current, he submitted case law that showed that, you know, you can't use this as a reason.
	Apparently the court is distinguishing between that case law.
	They're distinguishing it based on the fact that the situation has unfavorably changed given the Omicron variant.
	I mean, what judicial notice is this judge taking in terms of the, oh, there's a big spread of Omicron, not correlation in terms of hospitalizations or death.
	So I don't know what judicial knowledge that this judge is operating on.
	Setting aside, there has been no expert evidence that was submitted by any account.
	But let's just evaluate the facts.
	Omicron, and these are just factual.
	It's less deadly, less virulent.
	It's even less contagious than Delta.
	And I'm even going to say it for this, the younger you are, the less likely you have any type of adverse reactions.
	Something like 99%.
	50% of people under the age of 20 are going to have any type of adverse reactions, right?
	And we're talking about people who are not, who have comorbidities.
	So children are...
	You're talking about the virus, not about the vaccine.
	Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
	It's 99 point whatever, but yeah.
	Yeah, but for like children.
	So the threat, actually he is actually more in threat from the children than they are from him.
	Right?
	That's actually true.
	He would be actually more in danger.
	This is crazy.
	It's crazy.
	The last paragraph, paragraph 21, it doesn't really say anything important.
	And then 22, suspends the right of access to child X. Then they continue another motion.
	Sans frais.
	Sans frais de justice.
	Without court costs, given the nature of the dispute.
	Because court costs would be like a whopping...
	You know, $17 for the filing.
	Because court costs do not include legal fees.
	So, I've missed all the Super Chats that were going on in the meantime.
	Are we still sharing the screen?
	No, no, you stopped sharing it.
	You stopped sharing it.
	Let's go back to this one.
	It's...
	That's crazy.
	That's crazy.
	Okay, oh, you know what?
	I think I can bring up the Super Chats.
	Hold on.
	Poo-poo, pee-pee, wee-wee, ha-ha.
	Okay, let's see.
	I think I can get the two Super Chats that I missed, and then we're going to get into the discussion.
	Mind-blowing.
	I'm going to cut this clip and just people can see what's going on in Quebec.
	And with any luck, there'll be some public outcry that this is the new normal in Quebec that cannot be a judicial normal.
	This is...
	Just the logic in the decision.
	The judge sent judicial notice that the Omicron variant...
	Sorry, that the vaccine does not protect or has lesser protection against the Omicron variant.
	And yet...
	But then you require him...
	The logic doesn't make any sense.
	In other words, they might just get vaccinated.
	Essentially, it doesn't make any sense.
	The judge is saying, I don't like your ideologies.
	I don't like the fact that you criticize policy.
	I don't like the fact that you don't believe in the vaccine.
	Comply with my orders, or you don't get to see your kid.
	That's what it is.
	Point Curation says, my parents don't want to see me face-to-face anymore because they are double-vaxxed and boosted, and I'm not.
	And they are now afraid of getting sick.
	I don't get it.
	But I forgive them.
	It's causing family problems.
	You could definitely forgive them, but in order for you...
	The fact that you have to forgive them means that they have hurt you with their decision, and that's the tragedy in all of this divisive superstition as far as I'm concerned.
	Greetings, Viva!
	As an American, I don't know much about Canada, but does Canadian court assume an accused innocent or guilty?
	They all, in theory, assume innocence until proven guilty.
	But my goodness.
	This is family court, right?
	Yes, family court.
	Apparently, you know, in family court, you are guilty if unvaccinated until proven vaccinated.
	But from my understanding, you're supposed to.
	The father has a right to see his child, and you have to overcome that presumption that he has that right.
	So they're just overcoming the presumption of his parental rights by saying he's just giving back to vaccination.
	That's a hell of a...
	Jack Murphy lives in the house.
	Oh, Jack Murphy.
	And he's taking a shot at Nate.
	Nate has especially bad takes on almost everything.
	Well, we're going to flesh that out.
	And I wasn't sure if that's the real Jack Murphy, because there have been some very humorous avatars on the Twitterverse, given the recent drama.
	But, yeah, look, Nate, I don't think...
	Bad takes is...
	Colloquial.
	I think your takes are wrong.
	And I think you are guilty of strawmanning, Nate.
	But maybe I'm misreading your tweets.
	By the way, with that said, people, now you know what's going on in Quebec.
	And Robert and I will talk about it on Sunday.
	Nate, let's get into the great debate.
	Let's go play by the bay.
	What do you say?
	I just may.
	Okay, Nate.
	We're going to get to January 6th afterwards.
	Because I think you're wrong on January 6th.
	And I think you're being argumentative on January 6th.
	And I think you agree with me on January 6th.
	The discussion of the day today was...
	Let me phrase the question and you'll tell me if I'm phrasing it right.
	People should not be shocked and appalled at the concept of a vaccine passport because one has already been in place for the longest time.
	No one has objected.
	No one's complained.
	And therefore, they can object to this particular vaccine, but they can't be shocked at the idea of a vaccine passport.
	Is that a fair description?
	Yeah, my...
	Well, actually, I was responding to another tweet or to someone else responding to my tweet.
	So the way it all kind of worked out today was that first, the CDC kind of came out with some new numbers about vaccine effectiveness.
	So I tweeted that out.
	Hey, look, the CDC has come out with some new numbers.
	Tell me why they're wrong.
	But then it turned to mandates because people were like, well, all mandates, the response was all mandates were bad and we've never had vaccine mandates before.
	So that's what I was responding to.
	The all mandates are bad and we've never had vaccine mandates before.
	So I was like, no, that's an incorrect take.
	We have had vaccine mandates.
	And that's when we went into children and all that stuff.
	And that's kind of where it went down a waterhole.
	But I think everybody, no one heard, no one saw the beginning of the conversation.
	Everybody kind of jumped into the middle of the conversation.
	And that's when everything was just kind of going crazy.
	Well, so this is where I think we, before you can even get into the conversation, you have to define your terms in a meaningful sense.
	So people are saying, people are objecting to vaccine mandates, and then others are saying, well, you've already had mandates because whooping cough, TB, what, I mean, they give chicken pox in Canada, which I don't know why they do.
	I'm trying to think of some standard ones.
	The question is, though, Those are not mandates.
	I mean, that's where I think we have an issue, is that I don't think that those can be called mandates in the sense that we're using the term mandate right now.
	So, I mean, in the States, what's the judicial authority?
	Or what is the, I guess, what is the legal basis for compelling the vaccination of whooping cough, TB?
	And what's the other standard ones?
	Diphtheria?
	Is that under a mandate?
	Is that under a law?
	Or is that law tantamount to a mandate?
	And it's the same thing?
	What is the basis for compelling those vaccines?
	Well, we have two levels of government here.
	We have the state level and the federal level.
	So whatever the federal government doesn't have the right to do, it's left to the states.
	So I remember most people would probably have heard the case of Jacobson v.
	Massachusetts.
	And that's the case in which it established that the state has a right to compel its own citizens to be vaccinated.
	And in that case, Jacobson, it was a criminal sanction, right?
	They passed the law, and it was a criminal sanction.
	If you didn't get vaccinated, you committed a crime, right?
	And he was fined $5.
	He was actually criminal.
	He was charged, arrested, fined his $5, which is about $150 today.
	And that was it.
	And he went to the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court said that, yes, states, not the federal government, but states, can mandate...
	It's citizens to get vaccinated as long as they had some kind of public health emergency.
	And then it was smallpox.
	So that is the authority under which states could operate.
	And then we had the federal...
	Now we have kind of a federal government mandate, which is a little different.
	And that's what we heard last week with the Supreme Court.
	They were discussing whether the federal government has that authority to mandate...
	Well, actually, not to mandate vaccines, to mandate testing.
	But just to be clear, states do have the authority under Jacobson...
	To mandate citizens get vaccinated during a public health emergency.
	And if you want to read, and you guys can read the case, Jacobson, and that is inherently a state police power.
	So if you heard the oral arguments from the Supreme Court last week, you kept hearing them say police power to the state.
	And even with a couple of justices, a couple of conservative justices agreed that the states do have that authority to mandate vaccines.
	I want to bring this one up so everyone understands the joke here.
	I have one thing to say.
	Make an Aliyah.
	Aliyah is when Jewish people decide to move to Israel as the birthright of returning to the homeland.
	And I think the joke right here is Israel is the most vaccinated, boosted.
	They have a green pass.
	I don't know.
	I think they're up to their fourth shot, their second booster.
	And there is some viral video going around that you cannot even place an order on a screen at a McDonald's without showing that you're up to date on your vax pass.
	I don't share that particularly.
	I've seen the video.
	I've been assured by people who are in the know that it's authentic, but it could have been a defective computer screen, and then someone says, oh, look.
	So I don't share that, but they are over the top if you object to these things.
	They are leading the front if you support these things, but I believe they have now made their fourth shot second booster compulsory.
	So if you're against this stuff, you don't want to be making Aliyah, even if you had that option in the first place.
	Okay, so here's the thing.
	So the mandate then, a mandate, if we're going to use the term broadly, is just compulsion by the state or a law by the state that requires it for certain purposes.
	And people are going to say, yeah, Jacobson, they didn't compel the person to get the smallpox vaccine.
	They just fined them what would be a hundred bucks in today's dollars for not doing it.
	So now some people are going to say that Jacobson is bad law, although technically it still stands as precedent.
	It's still good law.
	It's either bad-good law or good-bad law, depending on your view.
	That's true.
	Mandate in the broad term means the state can compel it.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	The next stage where this went in your discussion on Twitter, now I'm realizing that might not have actually been the Jack Murphy because I didn't see the blue checkmark.
	Whatever.
	I hope I didn't get punked.
	Doesn't matter.
	Thank you for the support.
	What I was going to say was where the discussion devolved, Is you say, okay, we already have...
	The state already has the authority to mandate certain vaccines.
	They've done it.
	People often say if you want to go to certain parts of the world, you have to get West Nile.
	No, West Nile is not the right one.
	You have to get vaccinated, yeah.
	If you travel, international travel.
	Malaria.
	Malaria is the most obvious one.
	So, you know, a vax passport exists to some extent.
	Okay, fine.
	Your argument on Twitter for which you took some flack is, vax passports already exist, here's mine.
	I have to show this vax to get my kid into public schooling.
	Well, just so we can define our terms.
	When I say vaccine passport, I'm defining it as a document showing an authority that you've been vaccinated so you can do something, right?
	Go to school, go to work, go to...
	College, go to a movie, go to travel.
	That's a vaccine passport.
	And we've had them for years here in the city.
	You know, we literally had, they would write our vaccines that we've gotten into as a little book, and we used to have to keep it, but before, obviously, things got to, like, you know, became electronic.
	But, and you would have to carry it around.
	And I remember I had to...
	When we traveled internationally, they wanted to see the vaccine card to see if we were up to date or if we got the required vaccines.
	West Nile virus, for instance.
	And for college, I remember I had to show my vaccine card to go to college because meningitis was the vaccine that was required for you to get to go to college.
	And for school, obviously.
	We had to show it to go to school.
	So the vaccine passports had been around forever from, again.
	But that's in NYC.
	I don't know about all around the country, but for us, we did have these cards.
	I even have it right here.
	We had these cards, and it literally lists your vaccines.
	And it says right here, like, the things that you should, why you should keep this card to travel, to go to school, and all that stuff.
	Even in some employment places, it has it.
	So, yeah.
	Okay, so I think we're going to abandon one thing.
	And based on the comment, which is a fair comment, the mandate distinction, we'll drop the term mandate and understand that term to be compelled by the state, federal or state law.
	Passport.
	The passport now is going to be, I think we're going to also lose it at the passport because passport, if it means just right of entry for specific activities, fine.
	You know, you want to travel to Chad, you need to show a malaria vaccine because you need to, period.
	I had a friend who's a social worker, went to, not Rwanda, Burundi, I think it was Burundi.
	Had to get vaccinated and you had to do it before you go because you couldn't go.
	Fine.
	If we're going to refer to that as a passport, then I think we're going to more broadly understand the term passport as in authorization to do a specific activity of choice.
	But we have hitherto always understood that to be an overt choice, not living a life as a functioning member of a civil society, which is what it's turned into.
	That's where I think the broadening of the term passport, where you say, yeah, it's a vaccine passport because I couldn't go to public school if my kids didn't get it.
	That's not what we understand passport to be under the current context.
	So that it was required for certain activities is fine.
	And people might object or not object, but have come to agree, yeah.
	Although, Nate, have you ever asked people if they've gotten vaccinated for the whooping cough or TB?
	I've never asked anybody if they got vaccinated for anything.
	Not even COVID.
	I don't ask anybody.
	I never ask anybody.
	Which I think is one of the biggest distinctions.
	Maybe people do ask, but I don't ask.
	I don't care.
	Nate, you are lying.
	He was fine and he paid that.
	Let me just deal with it here.
	Nate, you are lying, mind reading, assuming of intentions, and ill intentions.
	He was fine.
	He paid.
	And that was that.
	They did not force a shot into his body.
	No one suggested he did, actually.
	It was Dershowitz who raised the argument that Jacobson allowed them to pin you down and, quote, plunge the needle into your arm.
	No.
	Jacobson doesn't allow that.
	And, you know, but again, I think what happens is that with fear that leads, right?
	And bad information leads to bad conclusions.
	And that person, you know, is as a bad conclusion or for information.
	I didn't say that.
	And I don't believe Jacobson stands for that proposition that you can hold people down and demand.
	Like, even now.
	There is no vaccine mandate, if we're going to call them a mandate, that is forcing people to get the shot in their arm, right?
	Right now, you have a choice.
	Matter of fact, I just want to be also clear, too.
	The Biden mandate isn't a vaccine mandate.
	Since we want to be hyper-technical here, the vaccine mandate that Biden is putting on, and Barnes tells you guys every week, because I sit here and watch him tell you every week, it is not a vaccine mandate.
	It is a testing mandate.
	Barnes says that all the time.
	So let's be clear with who's lying and who's not lying.
	We're not talking about Biden's mandate on the federal government is not a vaccine mandate.
	It is a testing mandate with a vaccine mandate.
	Now, we all know that's BS.
	We all know it's BS, right?
	Because it is a vaccine mandate, but that's the cover for it.
	But if we're going to nitpick here, then I can easily say, well, we don't have a vaccine mandate.
	It's a testing mandate with a vaccine exemption.
	Yeah, well, let's just call it the legalese workaround, which is as disgusting as the mandate itself.
	But that's what I'm telling people in the chat.
	If we want to have an honest conversation, I can nitpick like that and keep them at bay too, right?
	Well, what are you guys talking about?
	You guys are lying, but it's not.
	You guys are right.
	It is a vaccine mandate that's covered, but let's give each other some charity.
	I'm not going to read this, but thank you for the super chat.
	That's the distinction.
	Okay, well, nobody's forcing you to take it, but if you don't take it, you're going to have to pay for three tests a week, and we're going to swab the back of your brain.
	We're not going to do the long one just because.
	So this is the thing.
	The passport is also the semantic thing where I think we're going to not have much disagreement.
	If you want to call what you have to show to get into kindergarten a passport, fine.
	But some will say, well, a passport, I mean, some will say that showing a passport to travel across the world, to leave the country, is one thing.
	But if you started to have to show your passport, your actual physical passport, to travel provincially or state-wise...
	Some might say that's not what the passport was intended to be.
	So you're abusing of what we have understood a passport to be.
	Setting that aside.
	Okay, fine.
	There have been circumstances in which we have had to show proof of vaccination to participate in certain elements of society.
	Where the discussion is going to come to a head, Nate, because I think your vaccine passport, even the one that you brought up as the evidence, was under what we had hitherto understood the definition of vaccine to be.
	So fine.
	Let's agree that it's a passport.
	Let's agree that there are mandates that required you to show that passport, to partake in certain activities, to show proof of vaccination.
	The definition of vaccine under that passport when it was issued meant something entirely different than what vaccine is now being used as in the context of COVID-19.
	Fair point.
	That's where I think...
	100% fair point.
	You've got a fair point.
	So that's where I think the semantics...
	Fine, we can argue over what's a passport.
	We can argue over the extent of...
	Guaranteed.
	You're 100% right.
	They've changed the definition of vaccine to match this.
	So, you got me.
	I've conceded that point.
	You are 100% right.
	The vaccine on this document is different than what vaccine means today.
	And people are going to say...
	Like a boss.
	People are going to say...
	They're saying, okay, you've dealt with vaccine mandates before.
	You've dealt with vaccine passports before.
	Malaria, red fever, I don't know.
	All this stuff.
	Whooping cough, TB, diphtheria, tetanus.
	Fine.
	But those vaccines were one for 10 years.
	The tetanus, because I got mine within the last 10 years, it's good for 10 years.
	And it's good for 10 years because it fit the traditional meaning of a vaccine up until 2015, which was it protected you from infection.
	And by protecting you from infection, it necessarily prevented you from transmitting because you couldn't get infected.
	Rabies, for example.
	That would be another good one.
	Rabies is another good one, yeah.
	This is where everyone's going to have a problem with anything, any argument saying we've had vaccine passports before so you should have no problem with them now because the term passport was used more limitedly and the term vaccine was used more limitedly and right now basically what they've converted it into is a, at the risk of oversimplifying, a therapeutic requirement.
	For all aspects of society.
	And that's where people are going to say your analogy fails.
	Good with your vaccine passport.
	A, it wasn't for all aspects of society.
	It was for specific choices.
	And B, it was an actual vaccine which when you took it, A, it was for life or it was for a long period of time.
	And B, it actually did that which the experts are now openly confirming this does not.
	How do you respond to that?
	Because I don't think you have a rebuttal.
	My response is a couple of different things.
	First, the vaccines, there are a whole bunch of boosters for a lot of the vaccines that you take as a child.
	I just was looking through this.
	And for instance, my five-year-old, she's had something like, what, seven shots?
	She had her first dose of Hep B. Then she had a second booster of Hep B. She had her first dose of polio.
	She still has to get two more of those.
	So she has actually three doses of those.
	So all of these...
	Vaccines that we're talking about, they had multiple doses.
	So the multiple dose piece of it, I don't think is effective because all children have multiple doses of these vaccines.
	There's four you're supposed to get for polio right now.
	Go ahead.
	I was going to stop you on that.
	As far as I understand, there is a schedule to them, just so they don't jack you up with all of them at the same time.
	But it's a finite schedule.
	A finite schedule and a limited finite schedule.
	I don't even know which one.
	There's another one here for flu influenza that's yearly.
	It goes to the other page.
	It's a yearly vaccine.
	Again, maybe people don't consider the flu vaccine a vaccine, but the flu vaccine is something that you take every year.
	Actually, the flu vaccine is less effective than COVID vaccine.
	By, I think, an magnitude of two or something like that.
	And it's a guess.
	If you ever look at any of the studies for the flu vaccine, it's a guess.
	They don't know which flu is actually going to hit.
	So they try to make the best guess and give you guys, you know, give like a cocktail of different illnesses and then see if that happens to work that year.
	So, you know, it's...
	But my response is that I don't know the difference between...
	What these vaccines are, the effectiveness of these vaccines.
	But if the model is that, number one, because we talked about passports originally, I think there's some fear-mongering.
	And I'm not saying by you, but I'm saying I think there's fear-mongering going around when it comes to vaccine passports.
	When I looked it up, and I can pull it up right now.
	I was just saying, what jurisdictions actually have vaccine platforms?
	Meaning, you have to show your immunization card to go to a gym, to go to a restaurant, to go to the movies.
	It's like five states.
	Five states in the entire United States.
	If I'm venturing a guess, I'm guessing all five of those states are blue states.
	Am I wrong?
	All blue Democratic states.
	Matter of fact, there are more states that have outright banned any public place from asking you for a vaccine card.
	Texas.
	Florida.
	Mississippi, right?
	I can list them all.
	I think it's 20 states with outright bans on vaccine passports.
	So we are talking about 5 out of 5. Matter of fact, I'll make it 10 just in case I'm under calculating, right?
	10 out of 50 states, right?
	1 out of every 5 states.
	So most people who are hearing this are in a state.
	That are likely in a state that this is not even an issue for.
	So if you're fighting for us in those blue states, it's a different thing.
	Well, but now stop.
	You say most people listening to this.
	I guarantee you that those five states comprise of probably 50% of the American population.
	I would say the largest state in the Union is California.
	California, which is...
	The next two largest states.
	36 million.
	Florida, Texas.
	And Texas.
	Florida and Texas.
	I take that back, actually.
	You're going to have California and New York, and then you'll have, I don't know what the other blue states would be.
	What would be the other populous blue states?
	The other state is Washington.
	Washington is not big.
	So you have California and New York, which is 50 million max between the two, if you're counting only legals.
	So not a half of the states.
	Okay, fine.
	So, point well taken.
	Only five states, or maybe a little more, all blue states.
	Two of the bigger states.
	And most of the other ones have outright bans on it.
	So I think the fear-mongering piece of it, people are like, oh my God, I got to show a vaccine card to get.
	If you live in Texas, that's not true.
	If you live in Florida, it's not.
	As a matter of fact, if you live everywhere else except for these five particular jurisdictions, that's not true.
	That's what I'm saying.
	So I think there's a reality to the issue.
	And even here in New York City where they've instituted it.
	People are fighting it back on it right now.
	We are fighting these.
	We're like, no, we don't want this.
	We fight it on the bears.
	Like, oh my God, I'm going to try to stop it.
	And we're, you know, thinking about it.
	What would you reevaluate it?
	Even here, it's still a problem.
	So, you know, so I think the alarmists are making it seem like everywhere we go, even if we go to deep state Texas, these are bad.
	You know, I've got to show up.
	That's just not true.
	That's not the reality.
	So let's talk about the reality versus the impression of what's going on.
	I'm going to take it back to the action.
	I'm going to fight over the definition of passport because Needing vaccination to visit another country is fine.
	I'm a visitor and they have rules.
	Being forced to be vaccinated in my own country of citizenship is completely beyond the scope of government.
	And now, passport as the concept is...
	Can I take objection with that super chat?
	No one is forcing.
	And that's why, because again, if we're going to be serious with the language here, no one's forcing you...
	To get vaccinated, right?
	It's a carrot and stick.
	Just like we don't force children to get vaccinated.
	We say, well, if you want to send the children to public school, they must be vaccinated.
	Some people homeschool their children, right?
	So nobody's being forced to be vaccinated.
	The thing is that they're saying if you're going to do X activity, you should be vaccinated.
	And only five states are doing that.
	Only five states are doing that.
	Let's be honest.
	No, but I'll call bullcrap on your nobody's forcing you to.
	Let's just take it from the Canadian perspective.
	If someone says you can't work unless you get vaccinated, I consider that force.
	And I can understand someone says that's not force, just don't work.
	But that's force.
	Let's just say in New Brunswick.
	In Germany, if you want to get groceries, you have to be, I don't know, whatever they're up to now.
	If someone says you can't do...
	Fundamental things.
	You can't be a functioning member of society unless you get vaccinated.
	Someone will say you're not being forced to and I'll say that is disingenuous because you are actually being coerced into and that's a form of force.
	So this is where it'll be a question of perspective and the only question is going to be whose perspective is more just and more fundamentally palatable.
	If someone says you are going to lose your job unless you get vaccinated.
	Is it reasonable to say you're not being forced to get vaccinated?
	I guess technically.
	But on the other hand, if someone says you're going to lose your job if you don't get vaccinated, I think you're being coerced and therefore forced into getting vaccinated.
	So look, you know, confess or we'll kill you.
	We're not forcing you to confess, but if you don't, we're going to kill you.
	So I think that's an enlightened decision.
	I agree with that, right?
	If someone is saying, get vaccinated or lose your job.
	I agree.
	That's compulsion, right?
	You're being compelled to do it.
	No doubt about that.
	But generally, right, generally, we're talking about five states where that probably is occurring, where it is most likely to occur.
	The other 45 states, that's not happening.
	So if you're listening from this in Texas, no one, matter of fact, it's against state law for them to compel you to do that.
	If you're listening from Florida, so there's a reality of it, right, where that's not happening, but then there's a perception that it's happening everywhere.
	And that's what I want to bring in.
	If you're in North Carolina, that's not happening.
	Yeah, but in fairness to that, first of all, the nasal test is unacceptable surrender of autonomy.
	There's no question.
	You cannot even be compelled to take the nasal test under the quarantine act because it's an invasion of your body.
	And by the way, I did it once.
	I did it twice.
	The first and the last time.
	Never again.
	Oh, wow.
	But no, Nate, I think most people's objection is that they're not obviously objecting for where there's not a state implementing this, but they're saying...
	We're not waiting, because by the time we wait for it to be the case in the other 45 states, welcome to Canada.
	It is not true that all employers are accepting test options, just like it's not true that all employers are allowing religious exemptions.
	How is that not a mandate?
	Well, if people are requiring testing, I think that's already a violation, but Nate, field this one.
	Well, just to be clear, right, the Biden administration's mandate is just so, because I know, Barnes says it all the time, so I'm assuming, I assumed everybody understood it, but it's a testing mandate with exemptions.
	Those exemptions are, because for some reason, a lot of people believe that there's no exemptions for this mandate.
	There are exemptions.
	These are exemptions.
	For vaccinated people, exemption one.
	So if you're vaccinated, you don't have to go through the weekly test.
	People who work from home.
	Guess what?
	You're exempt, too, because you're not around anybody.
	Another group of you are exempted.
	Companies with less than 100 people working for them.
	Guess what?
	Exemption.
	If you have a medical issue, a medical reason why you can't take the vaccine, you're also exempt.
	And religious exemptions, which the Supreme Court kind of put in because there was no religious exemption, then they put in a religious exemption, so that's in there.
	So it's not like, so people pretending that it's either get vaccinated or you can't work.
	No, no, no, no.
	There are a multitude of exceptions, working from home, so forth, religious exemptions.
	And I know people.
	I've worked on a case where I got to help someone to get a religious exemption.
	And I had another friend who got a religious exemption, too.
	So, you know, it's...
	Again, I understand the want for...
	Okay, we want freedom, and we don't even want this to be an option.
	We don't even want them to go through this problem.
	Fair enough.
	But if we're talking about just the factual piece of it...
	This is a testing mandate, and there are five to six exemptions, and people can opt out, right?
	People can opt out, which is not even in place.
	An exemption that is not recognized or that is difficult to recognize is not an exemption.
	And in Canada, we have exemptions too, medical and religious, except when you have the prime minister coming out and saying, we're going to be extremely stringent in what we recognize by way of an exemption, and they're going to say, tell me what God you believe in, or they're going to say, well, your Pope just said...
	Get the vaccine, so now you're no longer religiously exempt.
	You no longer have an exemption.
	That's horrible.
	When your exemptions are subject to state scrutiny and arbitrary state acceptance, it's not an exemption anymore.
	It's just the state deciding whether or not they're going to force it.
	But let me bring this one up.
	Go ahead.
	Hauntus Farmer, whom I have Twitter exchanges with, and Hauntus, I do not take any ill will on any of our exchanges, even though I disagree.
	With a lot of the positions you expose in Twitter, but I thank you for the honest discourse.
	No vaccine was ever perfect.
	Even then, there were multiple technologies for making vaccines.
	Oral polio versus variolation versus MMR.
	Many vax are a series.
	Well, first of all, oh, sorry, MMR, not versus mRNA.
	This is true.
	No vaccine has ever been perfect, which is why in the early stages, they not only didn't force it on anybody, but they were quick to pull it when there were...
	An excessive amount of adverse reactions, excessive being proportionate and relative.
	And totally contrary to what's going on right now, which is, by all accounts, if you don't believe the reports, you don't believe them.
	If there were statistically this many adverse reactions reported on any other vaccine, apparently, according to many, they would have been pulled.
	So, yes, early stages, there's a lot of problems.
	Polio, for example, had a lot of problems in the early stages.
	But they were not compelled by law.
	And when they saw the problems, they responded in real time as they did with the swine flu vaccine.
	So, true, but that sword doesn't cut the way you think it does.
	I think it cuts the other way, which is until you know that it has decades worth of proven safety and efficiency above all else.
	You can't make it mandatory.
	You can't make it subject to mandates, which is not the case with this, arguably.
	My opinion, not medical advice.
	What was I just about to say?
	So, where did we drop off?
	I'm such a senile.
	We were talking about love.
	I had just made, because I understand, and for a lot of people, these facts that I'm laying out are difficult to accept, right?
	Because you've been told that this vaccine mandate is coming down.
	And by me saying that, I know it's upsetting people.
	And I don't mean to upset people, but...
	I'm just giving you the facts of what the reality of it is.
	Most states, 45 or even 40 of those states, don't have mandates, have banned the process altogether, and you don't have to show anything to go anywhere.
	That is the reality of it, right?
	And the vaccine mandate that is theoretically being put in place, right, that is being put in place, is not a vaccine, it's a testing mandate, and there are five exemptions that people go.
	So, you know, again, if people don't like the facts, I understand.
	But laying out the facts, I don't know what people are mad at the facts.
	That's just what it is.
	The testing mandate distinction might be a distinction without a difference.
	It's that pay for your tests, do them six times a week, whatever.
	Go get something stuck up your nose.
	As much of an invasion as the vaccine itself.
	So do that and you don't have to get it.
	And we don't recognize your exemptions.
	It's a distinction without a difference.
	But the question you mentioned earlier...
	But let's also be correct, too.
	Like, what you said, if it's happening in Canada, that's horrible.
	That should not happen.
	That's not happening here, though.
	But that's not happening here.
	Like, I got somebody who got a religious exemption, and we were afraid that they were going to go into what's your religion and stuff like that.
	We fell to the paper.
	Religious exemption, and guess what?
	Granted, no problem.
	You can go to work, right?
	Don't even have to worry about the test.
	That's the reality.
	Now, it may be different in the states you live in.
	I'm in New York.
	It may be different where you live in.
	But here?
	It's, you know, it's fill out the paper, say religious exemption, and you got no problem.
	Maybe some people don't want to do that.
	Maybe even the thought of actually filling out that piece of paper is communism for some people.
	But again, I just want to make it very clear.
	The process, you know, people are getting these exemptions.
	Now, Luke himself, who I know is also a sincere and genuine person in the comments, because I've seen you around for a long time, Luke.
	Or's vaccines in schools didn't exist in my state until the late 2000s.
	I'd be curious about that because I've been a kid.
	Measles, mumps, rubella.
	MMR.
	That's what it was.
	As far as I remember, you always had to have those.
	Except nobody ever checked precisely because the vaccines, as defined at the time, worked the way vaccines did.
	So you didn't need to ask a foreigner coming from Eastern Europe, have you had your MMR?
	Because so long as everybody else did, it didn't matter if you didn't.
	Which is different now.
	Which is the problem where...
	We've fudged the essential term so much that what was arguably a therapeutic or what would have arguably been defined as a therapeutic pre-2015 is now defined as a vaccine when, I don't know how you call it a vaccine, when the freaking CEO of Pfizer comes out and says it offers limited protection, if any, against the new variant.
	But don't worry, we'll have a vaccine for that in March.
	When there's a new variant, so that vaccine is going to be as useless for the newer variant as the current vaccine is against Omicron.
	Not medical advice people, just freaking logic.
	You don't have to be a doctor to know this stuff.
	So something you said earlier, though, flu.
	Where and when has flu vaccine ever been mandated or mandatory for anyone?
	Oh, okay.
	There was a case.
	Oh, sure.
	Yeah, I'll definitely get it.
	We're talking about health.
	Vaccines have been mandated at different levels.
	First, you have the school level, right?
	School vaccines.
	Then you have health.
	Based on the job that you have.
	So, for instance, if you're a health care worker, there are certain vaccines you need to have to work in health care.
	If you're in child care, there are certain vaccines that you need to have for child care and so forth.
	So, yeah, so the flu vaccine hasn't been...
	As a matter of fact, there's a huge case, I think, in the 8th of the Knife Circuit or something like that, where the Court of Appeals ruled there was a whole bunch of health care workers who didn't want to take the swine flu vaccine.
	So they rebelled against it and they sued.
	The court said, yes, you know, the vaccine for healthcare workers.
	And that's what I think the issue is with this vaccine, is that this vaccine is too broad, right?
	It should be targeted to...
	If you're in a...
	Meatpacking plant where you're all stuck together and you can't isolate.
	And healthcare workers, maybe those are people you have more targeted mandates versus this blanket mandate for everybody.
	I think that's the thing that I'm against.
	I'm against the whole idea of mandating everyone to take the vaccine.
	I think it should be treated like the flu vaccine in the general public.
	We're encouraged, but not mandatory.
	Well, Steve Britton, another individual who I know is sincere, has been around for a long time.
	A vaccine is not an impregnable suit of armor.
	It doesn't prevent infection.
	It teaches your immune system to fight infection off.
	True, except rabies, for example, I'm fairly certain is close to 100% effective if taken within the time frame of having been bitten by the rabid animal.
	Tetanus, similar.
	Tuberculosis will protect you from someone else who is infected.
	The issue is whether or not this is even a vaccine in the traditional sense, but not under the current definition, because under the current definition, words are malleable.
	The bans have loopholes written into the legislation.
	No teeth.
	People still losing their jobs.
	Well, that's true as well.
	In Texas?
	I don't know.
	In Ruby Red, Texas?
	In Florida?
	With DeSantos?
	I, you know, if that's happening, then you need to vote some people out.
	Because from what I'm hearing, those states, there is no, if you show your vaccine card, you might get arrested in those states.
	So let's, you know, but I think, and that's the problem.
	I think if we just have an honest conversation, we can all agree, we don't agree with the mandate, right?
	I don't agree with the mandate, you don't agree with the mandate.
	And I think the mandate is too overbought.
	I think what Biden's trying to do is ridiculous, right?
	Think about this, there's been no mandate, it's not like 60 or 70% of the population has already taken the vaccine, right?
	And Most of the people who haven't taken it, and most of the people who haven't taken it, aren't really white people who they're trying to say, or white Trump supporters who they're trying to say are the anti-vaxxers.
	It's actually minorities who are skeptical of the government, right?
	You ask minorities, we talk about Testiki and stuff, when they gave us the vaccine and we're having to give us the virus.
	So those are the people who are most skeptical of what's going on.
	So if we're talking about the government...
	The irony is amazing.
	It's the black population, the Latino population, and the indigenous population.
	All groups who have been systematically abused by the systemic government in Canada, the current government is currently apologizing for and compensating for prior government abuse of the indigenous while they are implementing policies that are going to, you know, that are basically...
	Targeting specifically the indigenous yet again.
	We don't have the same black population in Canada.
	Can't say African-American because we're in Canada.
	We don't have the same black population in Canada that you have in the States.
	But think about how twisted the logic is here.
	The logic is because everything is just so political.
	The Biden administration is going out.
	The Trump supporters and anti-vaxxers and white anti-vaxxers are destroying us and blah, blah, blah.
	But the reality, if you look at any of the data, shows that it's the minorities.
	It's the Biden voters who are less likely to take the vaccine.
	But instead of targeting those people to try to convince them that this is a good vaccine to take or to convince them to take it, they're trying to use it at a political end to try to hurt the other side.
	And that's the problem.
	So, you know, it just is what it is.
	I think both sides are playing politics with the vaccine, which doesn't need to because, again, I think people would take it if you just make the argument to them instead of calling them names, right?
	That's the problem.
	Where in Quebec, as someone had said, it's over 90% now that's double vaccinated of the eligible population.
	I know that it's over 80 of 12 and up.
	And they're still, first of all, they're still going, they're still targeting the unvaccinated as though they are responsible for everything that's going on.
	I mean, and it's nuts.
	But I like this.
	De jure, they are not forcing.
	De facto, they are forcing.
	It's a de facto which matters in your life.
	De jure is a legal fiction.
	It's a very, very poignant distinction.
	Technically, by the letter of the law, nobody's forcing you, but in reality, do it or starve.
	Do it or die.
	Do it or don't see your kid.
	But no, no, in Quebec, we're...
	That's crazy in Canada, boy.
	But in America, that's just not happening.
	You know, if there's somebody out there who's been forced to take the vaccine under penalty of death or whatever, let me know, because I know if you're in Texas, Florida, Miami, I know you're the whole...
	Matter of fact, if you're in...
	Pick a state off a map and just close my eyes and pick a state.
	You're probably not going to be forced to show anything in that state.
	Vaccine passports are probably going to be illegal in that state.
	I don't, you know, I understand why people are upset, but, you know, the reality of the situation is that, you know, people are just kind of making this wild assertion that just happens not to be true in the most of the places that we live in, right?
	Most of the places we live in, this happens not to be reality.
	Again, it's almost like if I feel like it's Rittenhouse again.
	I'm sitting here like I was on a liberal show one time and I was talking to him.
	The gun was legal.
	The prosecutor said the gun was legal.
	Oh no, the gun was illegal.
	Like no, the prosecutor said the gun was legal.
	It's like talking about the other side.
	There's no Texas and all these places.
	There's no passport.
	What are people talking about?
	I just don't know.
	Winston is my spirit animal.
	Coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
	Absolutely.
	But Nate, I don't think it's that.
	Nobody's saying that it exists where it doesn't exist.
	What they're saying is, don't even start to implement this, and I object to it in principle, so don't bring it into Texas.
	And admittedly, you have DeSantis saying, I'm going to legislate to prohibit this.
	And then you have some very twisted liberal logic saying, DeSantis prohibiting by law mandates is itself tyranny.
	I mean, you've got some twisted psychopathic.
	I don't want to say psychopathic.
	You've got some very interesting logic.
	But what they're saying is not that it is the case and it shouldn't be.
	It's like, don't bring it here.
	We don't want it.
	So keep New York and California.
	You guys want to divorce and separate?
	Go ahead.
	But they're looking at Canada and they're looking at New Brunswick where you can't get into an outdoor farmer's market without showing your vax pass.
	You can't apply for a job at Air Canada, one of the biggest or bigger employers in Canada.
	I told them to go fornicate themselves the other day.
	I think that might have been the rudest thing I've ever said on Twitter.
	But they're looking at the rest of the world.
	They're not bellwethers, but they're looking at the outliers and saying, we don't ever want that, so we're going to fight it tooth and nail now.
	Because you come in with a testing mandate, even if it's not technically a vax mandate, you're one step closer to a vax mandate.
	And as far as anyone's concerned, de facto, it's a vax mandate.
	If you don't want to get vaxed, oh, fine, fine.
	Stick it up your nose.
	And this is exactly what I'm talking about, having the honest conversation, right?
	If I was here to play the political game, I would say there is no vaccine mandate and people are crazy, right?
	People are just talking nonsense.
	But that's not the reality.
	The reality is this is a vaccine mandate.
	We know it's a vaccine mandate.
	But if the argument is going to be, well, now we got to get into the weeds and let's be hyper-technical, then you lose on the hyper-technical part of it.
	If we're talking about the reality of the situation, like the reality that most states, 40, 45, or 40 states out of the union don't have these passports, and we're talking about the reality of that this is actually a vaccine mandate they're trying to put in place, then I think we can have a more fulfilling conversation, which we all are against.
	You're against it, and I'm against it.
	I'm against the Biden vaccine mandate.
	You guys are against the vaccine mandate.
	I want to bring this guy up.
	Let's talk TV.
	Let's Talk TV says, delusional dude from New York.
	I can feel his elitist attitude.
	One thing I can assure you about Nate the Great, he's about as elitist as I am tall.
	Again, this might have been a tongue-in-cheek joke, but no, I think where people are going to say you're deluded, Nate, is that you're saying 50 states or 45 states have mandates against it, so people are overreacting to nothing.
	I say...
	Even if that's true, I don't think it's true.
	I think people are overreacting to something real.
	Even if that's true, then they're not overreacting.
	They're just reacting, and we all agree.
	Don't do it.
	Objective.
	You can nail.
	They're reacting to what's happening here in New York City, right?
	What happened in New York City, yes.
	This is wrong, right?
	I can't take my kids to a restaurant without showing their vaccine comes.
	So we can't even go.
	So you know what we have to do?
	We got to go across state lines.
	Again, I feel like we're going to go across state lines.
	We got to go across state lines to Jersey so we can eat the restaurant, right?
	Yeah, because this is just how it is here.
	But I think when people, you know, the factual piece of it, I always like to just cut through the nonsense.
	And I think cutting through the nonsense is the factual piece of it gives us more conscious understanding.
	And then we can talk about the policy piece of it, which I think we all agree with, and why we think that it should.
	And I think most people, if I said, well, we should turn the COVID mandate into something like it is with the flu mandate, where, you know, it's optional.
	And it's preferred.
	That's something I would be for.
	But I'm not for this whole, you know, you have to get vaccinated to lose your job.
	That's what Biden is saying.
	And I'm against that.
	So, AC or, so it is only happening to someone else, it is okay, right?
	No.
	Nate is pretty clear.
	He doesn't support it, period.
	The only argument is whether or not you think Nate is saying that people are overreacting by objecting to it as vehemently as they are.
	I will now say in my limited experience of life, there is no way that you could overreact to objecting to this.
	You've got to set the tone.
	Yes, I agree.
	This is why I think, Nate, ultimately all of our discussions come to an agreement because we agree on substance.
	We just don't share our thoughts the same way.
	And in a way, maybe to a fault, you want to be a little more forgiving on the other presentation of the idea, which is, okay, fine.
	It's not everywhere, so you're overreacting.
	Bullcrap.
	I don't think people are overreacting, but here, Nate.
	My argument is that...
	Go ahead.
	I was going to say, not forced.
	Gateway pundits, so take it for what it's worth for anyone who wants to discredit the source.
	They're saying, okay, you don't have to get vaccinated, but if you want to travel here, you've got to be detained for two weeks in a camp.
	So, de jure versus de facto compulsion.
	We agree.
	I mean, we agree.
	Forced detention of the actually contaminated or the suspected contaminated objectively wrong.
	We can agree on that.
	Forced detention, yes.
	I think forced detention is wrong.
	Without due process of law, forced detention is wrong.
	Yes.
	I think they were doing that.
	Remember?
	Yeah, forced detention without due process of law.
	You have to have due process of law.
	What if your due process of law is that Quebec judge who says, okay, you're detained now.
	That's not due process of law.
	Like, for instance, when New Yorkers, when the virus first came out, And New Yorkers were going down to Florida in droves.
	And DeSantos put state troopers at the border and stopping everyone with New York license plates and forcing them to go and, you know, and forced, what was it, forced?
	They were forcing them to go stay for 14 days.
	That was forced detention, right?
	Without due process of law, you got a New York plate.
	You got to go and stay in a hotel room for 14 days.
	So, you know, but people forget that, right?
	People forget that because it's, you know, again, I understand we're all playing on teams here.
	But, you know, it's hard because a lot of times when you try to cut through the BS and just say, well, here are the facts of the situation.
	Now, is it as bad as people think it is?
	Yes, I agree.
	You want to fight against the fascism, especially the fascism here in New York and the power grab from the government.
	But, you know, like people are saying, oh, well, I can't.
	See a movie.
	I can't do this.
	I can't do this with a vaccine passport.
	Say, where do they live?
	Texas.
	They're not being honest, right?
	They're just trying to win an argument.
	And that's what I'm saying.
	If most people here, I would suspect, are living in a state that doesn't have vaccine passports, but they're going to argue as if they are.
	And I don't think that's being honest.
	Well, yeah, but I'll push back on that and say I don't care if they're pushing back purporting that they live in a state that has one.
	They're pushing back on the argument per se, and so it doesn't matter if they are or are not living in a vaccine-mandated state, they're pushing back on it.
	But then you have people from Florida, and I brought up the chat, and I think I've lost it now.
	I'm trying to find one other chat, where they're saying, because these things can actually be, like, county-decided, they have to show VAX passport to work remotely.
	But so...
	But hold on, I've got to bring up one chat, which I missed.
	They straight up said no to that.
	There was a chat from Tank Rat, which is in AED100.
	I don't know what currency that is.
	I can't bring it up.
	And it says, I'm not traveling until this pandemic is over.
	No new masks, no vaccine pass...
	Oh, sorry.
	No now masks, no vaccine passport, and no PCR tests.
	I work overseas and I haven't left this...
	Oh, the Emirats since September 2019.
	So I guess that's Emirat dollars.
	AED, by the way.
	Just my own anecdote.
	I went to law school in Quebec City.
	AED was our literal Association des Etusions de Droits.
	So the AED was what we called the Law Student Association.
	So that's why I saw that and I wanted to bring it up, but I can't find it now.
	Wife works as a registered nurse.
	Even with religious exemptions, they mandate nasal lobotomy tests.
	If anyone's had one of those, you don't do them a second time.
	I've had one.
	I thought you couldn't discriminate.
	Oh, by the way, I'm not strawmanning you, Nate.
	I'm just saying.
	Nobody's forcing you to get vaccinated, but if you want to keep your job, you have to have a freaking mummification lobotomy of a test twice a week.
	And you have to pay for it, by the way.
	I don't know if you have to pay for it in the States.
	It doesn't really matter.
	I know some places are making the employees pay for it, some places are not.
	But don't forget, there's also get vaccinated, work from home.
	Companies with less than 100 people, medical and religious exemptions, or you get tested.
	So, you know, there are other exemptions, but people, you know, it's funny because I know, listen, I understand.
	It doesn't play well to say, hey, here are the exemptions that are actually allowed, right?
	People just want to say, it's vaccinated or not, or get a jab stuck under your nose.
	No, because, again, people get religious exemptions.
	People have medical issues.
	People, not everybody works in a company with 100 employees, right?
	And some people, like a lot of people, now work from home.
	So those people aren't.
	Forced to get vaccinated, right?
	And if you live in a state like Texas, well, if you're not vaccinated, then you don't have to worry about going to the movies or going to restaurants, right?
	Matter of fact, you live in the majority of states in the United States.
	But I do understand your point, and I don't want to give it short shrift.
	Your point is valid, and it is correct, and I agree with it.
	And since when you see the tyranny starting, you want to cut it off before it...
	Infects everything.
	And if that's the point you're making, I agree with it 100%.
	But I would also just rebut and say that when someone's being disingenuous and saying that this is happening all over the country, because that's what was happening on Twitter.
	People are saying this is happening all over the country.
	It's insane.
	That's just not factually.
	That's not true.
	And that's what I'm saying.
	Factually, it's not true.
	But, you know, technically...
	It's not true, right?
	Because it's only 5 out of 45 or 40 out of 45. It is happening all over the country.
	The only question is whether or not it's going to be tolerated all over the country.
	That's the distinction that I think most people are going to object to.
	Now, Health Canada recommends sex with masks on and glory holes.
	Look it up.
	First of all, I was looking at your avatar because you have a very ripped body.
	But now I'm thinking that those look like tattoos.
	And I say this without judgment.
	I have a friend who's tattooed.
	Over most of his body.
	Anyways, by the way, you're very trim and rips in that avatar, if it's a real avatar.
	But yes, 1,000% I can confirm.
	It was Teresa Tam who said, consider wearing a face mask during sexual intercourse to prevent the transmission of COVID.
	You can go to the P to the V or whatever your letters are joining to, but wear a mask.
	And then the glory hole, they said, if you're going to do it, consider having a barrier between the two people, which some people said is a glory hole.
	I don't know.
	Never done it.
	Been married happily for...
	Well, we've been married happily for many years, but we've met...
	Okay, there's an old joke.
	Forget it.
	This one.
	Medus...
	Insanus.
	Okay, because I saw anus first, and then it's like, Insanus.
	What is hyperbole in the USA is reality in Canada.
	Visited parents back in Ontario over the holidays.
	VRL and flying requires vaccine.
	Mask rules are wild.
	Apparently gators are bad.
	LOL.
	Service workers are quasi-authority now and out there.
	By the way, it's not...
	Can you imagine that?
	Okay, so they do require it.
	Flight and train.
	And I believe it's public transit.
	So even bus.
	Greyhound.
	Show your vax pass.
	Who does that punish, by the way?
	I will show my...
	I will show a vax pass to get on public transport.
	Oh, I shouldn't say over my dead body.
	If I fly, I will show what I have...
	What's there?
	Because I'm leaving at that point.
	But imagine, who does that penalize?
	People without cars.
	People without private transport.
	It penalizes the very demographics that the government was purportedly protecting.
	Because it's a racist government that thinks that minorities are not able to make their own decisions for themselves.
	And if they don't agree with what the white savior says they have to do, we need to compel them to do it through coercion.
	Because that's liberation.
	The residential schooling system, people, has not ended.
	It's just evolved.
	And Justin Trudeau knows damn well that he is taking over his father's legacy for that.
	And my goodness.
	Okay, but Nate, I think we've not milked, but we've exhausted this discussion because I think we ultimately agree.
	We ultimately agree.
	I think we ultimately agree.
	And the semantic argument is that Again, I'm somebody who likes to evaluate arguments and try to understand what both positions are.
	And I think one position is this is a vaccine mandate, this, this, this, but then technically it's probably not, and then we go into the fine details.
	But I think my points are to say that there's never been any vaccine mandates in the United States, that's just factually incorrect.
	To say that no jobs require you to be vaccinated, that's just not.
	That accurate.
	Not to say that vaccine passports.
	It's just like we know, right?
	I can pull up cases where there are jobs.
	Matter of fact, I can pull up statutes right now from Tennessee and from different states that require healthcare workers to be vaccinated with the flu.
	So it's a more complex and I think it's a more colored conversation, a contextual conversation.
	But if we're all dealing with different facts.
	Then it's not going to be helpful to the conversation.
	I think the facts of the matter are is that...
	Five, maybe, and I'm making this up, right?
	I'm going to give up 10 states, right?
	Because everything I've seen, it's been less than that.
	But I'm saying 10 states at most have passed, you know, forced people to show an ID code.
	The other 40 do not.
	And the majority of people who are watching this in the United States don't have to go through those measures.
	And the mandates that we're talking about have many exemptions because that's another, for some reason, big cognitive dissidence that people say there is no exemption.
	It's either vaccine or death.
	And it's not true.
	It's like there are plenty.
	And the last part is that most people don't, you know, if you live in Florida and you're not vaccinated, you're not going through the, you're not suffering in the same way that you are in New York.
	Not to speak from any personal research except if there are certain districts and certain counties that require vaccination for certain things.
	Schooling, religious schooling, private schooling, certain employment.
	It's not exactly true, Nate.
	The bottom line, though...
	While there are not anyone agrees with your assessment of the overall state of the law in the United States, the underlying thing which everyone can forgive, pardon, and maybe even think about loving Nate again for, he's against it.
	Period.
	But the only question is, what's the extent?
	What's the scope?
	What's the risk?
	And are people reacting to a real threat versus a perceived threat?
	Fine.
	Okay.
	There was something I was about to say that I forgot what I was about to say.
	It doesn't matter.
	We're going to move this debate aside.
	Nate, January 6th.
	I also think you're wrong on January 6th.
	Okay.
	But I'm not even sure.
	If anyone has any questions on the VAC stuff, we can do it.
	But, I mean, we fleshed it out.
	Bottom line on the VAC stuff, the mandates are wrong.
	I guess the only question is whether or not we agree on the extent of the problem.
	Which affects the extent of the remedy of the solution.
	But the underlying principle, we both agree.
	And we both agree that, you know, I think we agree in principle.
	Now, January 16th, you think, when I say that that was a setup, and when I say that, I think on January 6th, who wants to do the framework?
	You want to set up the framework for January 6th?
	You know what, alright, so...
	Let me, because since you're talking about my position, right, you're saying my position is, my position, you're challenging my position, so I'll explain to you who my position is.
	Okay, I think, just so I'm going to be very, very clear, because sometimes it's hard to be, sometimes people misunderstand.
	January 6th was a riot.
	It was not an insurrection.
	It was not a terrorist attack.
	People who are telling you that are lying to you or trying to mislead you.
	The news media is lying and trying to mislead you.
	I think we can agree on that, right?
	I've said that from the beginning, right, Viva?
	I've said that from the beginning.
	Matter of fact, I was initially calling it an insurrection.
	And then I apologized for calling it an insurrection because I did more recently.
	I said, no, it's not an insurrection.
	Number two, who do I think is responsible for January 6th?
	I believe it is the people who were in charge of security who were...
	Or the issue with January 6th.
	That's why all the top people in the security apparatus got fired or either quit.
	Because when you look at the January 6th, and if you want to look at the breakdown, I did the breakdown.
	When you look at that video, the cops weren't prepared.
	There was no riot.
	At one point, they had five cops to stop like 10,000 people coming.
	I'm going to give you even more credit, Nate.
	You put out a video talking about the failures and the failings of the D.C. police.
	And DC in general, in that all the hallmarks were there, the indicators were there, and if the FBI was paying attention, which they probably were...
	They should have known.
	So you put out a great video on that.
	They said they knew.
	Remember, there was an interview with the DCP, with the law enforcement apparatus two days before January 6th, and they said, oh, we see them saying they're going to take over the building and all that stuff.
	They laughed at them.
	They said there was nothing to be concerned about, and their minds were...
	This is something like they're...
	You know, misful thinking of taking over the Capitol is ridiculous.
	But then it happened, right?
	So I think the failure was a security failure.
	It was not a failure.
	And, you know, the people who were there, they have personal responsibility, but I think the failure was one of the security apparatus.
	Now, the reason why I'm coming to those conclusions is something very similar happened four years before.
	January 1st, I mean January 20th, 2017, there was a huge riot, fire, police were armed, 200 people were arrested when Trump got elected.
	But most people don't hear that because the news media didn't characterize it as a riot.
	They didn't characterize it as terrorists.
	They didn't characterize it as anything.
	They said it was protests where 200 people got arrested, a whole bunch of cops got hurt, and they burnt down buildings and burnt down cars and broke a whole bunch of...
	That's when it was seen at.
	But those incidents, because I got a video coming out with the actual video, but those incidents were just as bad as January 6th.
	But in one instance, news media characterized those rioters as protesters, and on January 6th, it characterized those rioters as insurrectionists.
	Now, the only difference is that on January 6th, the security apparatus, if you watch the video, I mean, January 6th, on January 20th, 2017, if you see that video, you see there was just as many police as rioters when Trump was inaugurated.
	But then, four years later, there were only five cops there for 10,000 people.
	So now when you talk about setup, because you mentioned the word setup, I do want to say this.
	The Democrats were the ones saying it was setup.
	And then when I said it was a setup, people called me a right-wing lunatic.
	But the Democrats are the ones saying it was a setup.
	And now, I believe that, yes, unless security was just that obtuse, then something had to go on behind the scenes.
	So those were my thoughts.
	So now, where do you disagree with that?
	I'm sorry, because I went on for a little bit.
	No, no, no.
	I don't disagree with it much.
	I think it...
	You can never get into whether or not it was a deliberate setup, like whether or not the FBI is saying, hey, dudes.
	I'm going to pay an informant to go in there and instigate a crowd, and I'm not thinking of any names in particular.
	Ray Epps or the...
	What's that thing called where you stand on top of it?
	Oh, dude, what's it called?
	You build up a tower and you look down.
	The tower guy.
	Oh, the ivory tower?
	The ivory tower?
	It's the thing where you actually have a...
	Let me just take this chat off.
	By the way...
	What?
	You take that damn thumbs down back and you give it a damn thumbs up because nobody even sees a thumbs down, sir.
	Who are you doing that for?
	I'm joking.
	No, there was a scaffolding.
	There was a scaffolding guy.
	So you had your Ray Epps who was instigating the night before the day of.
	You had your scaffolding guy.
	You had your fence cutter guy.
	You had the three unindicted co-conspirators who were arguably the most proactive and prolific of the insurrectionists, unindicted co-conspirators.
	Who have not been indicted, whatever.
	But they went after Grandma.
	I say this.
	I'm very cynical.
	I know when I have dark, deep, dirty thoughts.
	I might think that this was a deliberate setup by the deep state apparatus.
	Let me say it.
	The same FBI that falsified evidence that they submitted to the FISA courts to obtain a search warrant, the fourth one, against Carter Page, so they can jump against Trump.
	So they can then spy on the incoming president.
	That same corrupt, deep state swamp creature of an institution, do I think that maybe they might have set this up too?
	I don't know.
	It wouldn't surprise me given their past proven conduct.
	So whether or not January 6th was a deliberate, overt setup, you had your FBI paid informants a la Whitmer doing it, or whether or not they knew that there were going to be a lot of people there, and they knew.
	Mob mentality, how to navigate a crowd, how to instigate a crowd, how to exacerbate the emotions of a crowd.
	It doesn't matter.
	You know, and we all know, not you, Nate, but you, us, know that they turned down security.
	They opened the gates.
	This is where my issue with you, Nate, is I'm not saying it wasn't anything.
	There was violence.
	There's no question.
	I saw the video where Roseanne Boyland died.
	Killed, whatever.
	Yeah, that's a violent protest, no question.
	I also saw them opening the doors to people and Grandma walking through taking freaking selfies within the Capitol Hill who pleaded guilty subsequently because, you know, they pressured her enough.
	That dude walking out with that podium.
	That's...
	Good God, compare that to actual stuff.
	So I've seen it.
	I know what I believe.
	I believe it was either a setup overt, a setup subvert, or a co-opted incident.
	All the outcomes are the same.
	It is being weaponized so that they can politically prosecute political adversaries.
	It's being weaponized so they can set up congressional hearings to go after their political adversaries, to investigate their political adversaries, and by no means legitimate legislative purposes.
	It is being turned into what 9-11 was.
	And if I had appreciated what 9-11 was at the time, my goodness, I would have been the smartest 21-year-old at the time.
	They are using this...
	Go for it.
	No, you're right.
	I think they're using this...
	I think both sides does it.
	I think the January 6th commission...
	You're going to get in trouble with both sides.
	The both sides do it.
	What I'm saying is that...
	No, I'm going to say I think both sides do it.
	I think they both try to coach or try to...
	Because I'm a centrist, right?
	I have no ideological gains, right?
	I don't care.
	And that's why I always say I feel like I'm the freest guy on YouTube.
	I can say things like, Red House was innocent, but I can also say Chauvin was guilty.
	And it's just that's the way I feel.
	So you know when I'm saying it, I'm saying what I honestly feel.
	Let me tell you what's up.
	A centrist means being in the middle.
	And not putting yourself in the middle.
	I'm going to throw that out there.
	That's a beautiful quote.
	My critique of you, Nate, is going to be, you're not a centrist because you put yourself in the middle.
	You'd be a centrist because you are in the middle because of the forces.
	But not calling Jan 6 what it was, I don't think that makes you a centrist.
	That might make you a denialist, if I may critique you.
	Yeah, it's possible.
	Again, I take each event.
	And evaluate it on its own merits.
	And I think January 6th was a failure of the security apparatus.
	I don't think anybody could...
	There should be no one who can legitimately look at what happened at January 6th and say security didn't fail.
	When you have five officers just sitting there and 10,000 people walk up to them and they're trying to push back a gate, it's like you know security has failed.
	And you could just literally go back six months to the Black Lives Matter rally in June when you had...
	Thousands of officers there waiting for the protests to come up.
	And that's what I'm talking about.
	So when you say it may be a setup, I understand that.
	And I understand why.
	It's a reasonable conclusion to come to based on what you saw.
	And that's why all the top people in the Capitol Police, that's why all those people resigned because it was high level incompetence that caused that event.
	Now, was there some underlying motive to it?
	I don't know.
	I can't say.
	But what I can say is that when on...
	It's funny because Ted Cruz, he just recently did the whole January 6th was terrorism.
	And then he went on Tucker Carlson and he went back and said, oh, well, you know, I've always been calling it terrorist.
	And he's right.
	When it was the events on January 20th, 2017, when Trump got elected, he called them terrorists.
	And then January 6th, he called them terrorists.
	But Tucker was like, we can't call them terrorists because you know people are trying to label them terrorists to label everybody, half the country terrorists, calling them all Trump-supported terrorists.
	It's funny because then Tucker, the next night, will call BLM, all those are terrorists, to try to label that side of the country terrorists.
	But the truth of the matter is, neither side are terrorists, right?
	What happened on January 6th was a riot that just went bad, and I think there were a lot of good people in there who just got caught up in the moment.
	That's what happened on January 6th, and security is the one who failed that.
	But I think they didn't fail on January 20th, 2017, and that's why you haven't heard more about it.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	I think it was a deliberate failure, so they could then weaponize the deliberate failure, which they would pretend was not a deliberate failure, so they could then use it to maliciously prosecute ideological adversaries, create a bipartisan congressional committee, because you got Dick Cheney, the war criminal's daughter.
	And yes, I will call Dick Cheney a war criminal, and I will not apologize for it, because now I know a little bit more.
	Call me what you want.
	Dick Cheney was a war criminal.
	George W. Bush had two reports in his hand.
	One said, do we invade for this reason or do we invade for that reason?
	Both said we invade and they had the reason in there.
	Now that I know what these freaking intelligence reports mean, knowing that the intelligence that said, let's go spy on Carter Page are based on actual falsified evidence.
	Screw them for the rest of their lives.
	They have breached their trust with me.
	So yeah.
	It was weaponized.
	It was either set up or exploited.
	It doesn't really matter because at the end of the day, they're the same thing.
	The only question now is, Nate, the love of money is the root of all evil.
	The only way to fight this system is to stop using their fiat and fiat markets stonks.
	Get the people's money.
	I didn't even see your name.
	We toke bitcoins.
	Didn't even see that, by the way.
	Hashtag not an ad.
	I do not sponsor Bitcoin, nor do I say anyone should invest their money in something that is unverifiable.
	I don't know how Bitcoin works, despite all the...
	whatever.
	No, Nate, I gotta tell you, knowing what I now know about American politics and Canadian politics, for that matter, I look at Jan 6 as in it was either set up or set up to fail.
	And it achieved its purpose.
	And now they're milking it.
	Like the corrupt bastards that they are in politics and Washington.
	You had AOC crying about how she thought she was going to die.
	My goodness.
	She was never even in any type of...
	I still want proof.
	Definitive proof, which I appreciate she can never give me.
	That she had COVID.
	Or got COVID from her gallivanting around like a freaking hypocrite in Florida.
	While she masks up and locks down and vaccinates New Yorkers.
	Goes to free Florida.
	You're a freaking hypocrite.
	And you know it.
	And I don't necessarily believe that she had COVID.
	It doesn't even matter if she did.
	Because at the end of the day, we're all going to get it.
	Always my biggest concern is that...
	We live in an extremely hyper-partisan world.
	And it's sad because the truth sometimes just doesn't matter anymore.
	It's all about the spin.
	And like, for instance, one of my biggest pet peeves is the Russia-Trump collusion thing, right?
	Obviously, right?
	There was nothing to it, right?
	It came down.
	There was nothing to it.
	No Russian collusion.
	No Russian collusion.
	But you still have Democrats who will...
	Listen, if you go back, you'll still have Democrats that say Russia stole the election for Trump and there was a huge bunch of Russian collusion even after the fact.
	Why?
	Because it's politically convenient to say that, right?
	And to keep people thinking that.
	And then on the back end, it's convenient for people to say the election was stolen.
	These are...
	I understand.
	We here in America live on two teams.
	The blue team and the red team.
	And it's just tough because I'm not part of any one of those teams.
	And when you're not part of the teams, you live in this kind of nebulous world where you can call out the Russian stuff is BS.
	January 6th is not terrorism.
	That's just ridiculous.
	But then you also can say on the other side, well, this makes sense too.
	And this makes sense too.
	So, you know, it just is what it is.
	I know a lot of people want people...
	A lot of times, you want somebody who you can follow or you can listen to who is right with you all the time.
	What I'm selling is not popular.
	I'm just selling...
	This is the truth.
	I'll give it to you.
	And this is my true opinion.
	If you like it, take it.
	If you don't, you don't.
	Some people can't handle the truth.
	You can't handle the truth.
	And some people cannot handle it.
	And just like with Rittenhouse, there's a whole bunch of people who I'll argue with probably tonight about Rittenhouse who cannot handle the truth that he was innocent and that he was attacked and that he should have always been found out.
	He should have never been caught in a trial.
	But they can't handle that truth.
	Well, I want to bring up 11 Bravo Crunchy, which is, I believe it's supposed to be a play on 11 Bravo Charlie, which is actually the aeronautical terms.
	White pill for the night, people.
	My wife of 10 plus years and I are expecting our first child to be born sometime in the next two weeks.
	Due date is January 24th.
	Don't know if a boy or a girl yet.
	First of all...
	I am not approving of any message you might be indicating with your avatar, sir.
	I know what that means, but I do.
	First of all, thank you for the support, and God bless and Godspeed.
	What was I about to say about your truth versus the truth, Dave?
	The facts are the facts, but then the interpretation of the facts are the interpretation of the facts.
	That's what I'm saying.
	It's my truth.
	Well, I don't agree with one's truth on the interpretation, but not one's truth on the facts.
	So long as we agree on the facts, agree to disagree on the conclusions.
	We don't disagree on any of the facts.
	We really disagree on the facts.
	I think we, by and large, Jan 6th, by the way.
	They declined additional security.
	They knew what was coming.
	You have freaking video evidence that's becoming increasingly popular of individuals the night before saying, we're going to go storm the Capitol.
	And the crowd saying, no.
	They used the R word.
	The foreboden, uh, Tropic Thunder from Down Under, uh, R word.
	You can't use that.
	And then they started calling the dude, whose name happens to be, you know, his name is out there, a Fed.
	And yet, lo and behold, that dude is down to the next day, egging on the crowd.
	You got your dude on the scaffolding, egging on the crowd.
	You got your dude cutting fences, egging on the crowd.
	All of them are unindicted co-conspirators.
	And yet, they go after...
	So, we know the facts.
	We know how the swamp, the filthy swamp of Washington, weaponizes all of this.
	We know how the government sets stuff up.
	In general, not specifically to exploit it later.
	We know the government sets us up to just be bad.
	The only question is where do we go from here?
	But that's another issue.
	Let's see.
	Not a banned account says, Nate likes mandates.
	Does he like forced isolation?
	Nate, you want to feel this one?
	I love Mandaids.
	No, but again, because obviously these are trauma to try to...
	I'm supposed to be like, oh my god, I like Mandaids.
	I like Mandaids.
	Listen, people, anybody who watches my stuff or knows me understands I'm just telling you what I believe.
	I call it my truth, but it's really just my opinion.
	I'm telling you what I believe.
	I'm telling you what I feel.
	But when I tell you something's a fact, like these are the facts behind it, I'll source them to you.
	Like, here are the facts, and here's where I'm getting these facts from, and this is why I believe them, right?
	So, you know, it's difficult because it always happens weird when you lay out the facts.
	And again, people can search the facts that I'm giving you about the mandate, right?
	You can just Google them and find out and see if I'm telling you exactly what they are.
	And if you disagree with them, then tell me, hey, Nate, you're wrong on the facts, but just look them up for yourself, right?
	The reason why I do it that way is so you don't have to trust me.
	I'm going to bring this one up.
	Britt Cormier, again, back in the house.
	I think we brought up a chat by Britt, but Britt, otherwise, thank you very much.
	Another individual who I know by name because of consistent chatting.
	Catching up, Nate, I cannot think of a time when the population of any state had to disclose medical history to strangers.
	If I cannot take the vaccine to a medical condition, but if I have business in New York, I have to disclose why I am not juiced.
	No one's going to disagree with The offensiveness of that concept.
	Nate's argument is going to be the problem, which we agree is a problem, is not as extensive as others pretend it to be.
	Whereas I'm going to say, I don't care if it's extensive or not extensive.
	If it exists, it's offensive.
	And therefore, if it exists in principle, it's offensive in principle in any and all iteration of that problem.
	And I'm in a country now where...
	They're talking about an un-vaxxed tax.
	A tax for the un-vaxxed.
	That's crazy.
	Which apparently is going to come into effect within the month.
	So, you know, Nate might be saying, technically, de jure, I'm right.
	And he might be.
	But then, in reality, Nate's a few weeks off of Canada because, you know, the world goes crazy quickly.
	Yeah.
	Well, I think about the tax.
	I think the vaccine mandate is secretly a tax.
	And just to explain, I think the testing mandate is secretly a tax.
	And why it's a tax is because who's going to pay for the test?
	So I think that's where the tax comes in.
	And that's where businesses, because it's really not the individual has to make the choices of business.
	The business has to make the choices to allow you either to get vaxxed or mandate.
	But if you think about it, business has got to say, I've got to test you every week at whatever the amount is to pay for the test.
	Then I'm going to say, well, just get the vaccine.
	It's a one-time shot for free.
	Or, you know, or lose your job.
	And I think that's the issue right now.
	The issue is that this is kind of like this backdoor tax to force businesses, to force individuals to be vaccinated.
	So that's why I believe it is a vaccine mandate.
	But I think it's a backdoor way of doing it.
	I think it's a nice legal maneuver.
	That I don't agree with, but I think we should just call it for what it is, right?
	This is a backdoor tax on businesses to force them to tell employees to get vaccinated or they're going to have to pay a tax, and that tax is paying for the test for the weekly test.
	And most employers have already said they're not paying for that tax, right?
	Most employers say, well, you need to get vaccinated or we're going to find somebody else.
	I'm just going to see.
	I want to just check one thing here.
	But, Nate, we agree on January 6th.
	It was a goddamn setup.
	And anyone who doesn't think it's a setup, the way it's being weaponized by war criminal daughter...
	What's her name?
	Elizabeth Cheney?
	Yeah, it's Liz Cheney.
	Liz Cheney.
	Well, hold on.
	I'm going to be fair.
	I don't agree on it.
	It was a full setup.
	I'm saying that it's...
	I'm saying it's one of those things where you say, but I'm saying the security of January, the failure of January 6th is in the security apparatus that was not prepared for the crowd they knew were going to come to do exactly what they are.
	I just want to be very, very clear with that.
	They were prepared.
	They deliberately turned it down.
	They deliberately let people in.
	They opened up doors and they said, good, we got our freaking lobsters in the cage.
	We got our fish on the net and now we're going to Go after 700 of them.
	Unlimited resources.
	Unlimited FBI resources.
	Corrupt FBI resources to go after Jan 6th.
	And yet the Summer of Love that killed 150 people gets a pass.
	Mostly fiery.
	Nate, what do you have on for the week?
	I'm doing the Cardi B thing.
	I'm doing the whole January 6th.
	So I got a video coming out where I'm going to play clips of...
	Either between January 6th when Trump was gone versus when he got elected.
	And I'm going to play the two riots.
	And then I'm going to try to ask people, like, is this January 6th or is this when Trump got elected?
	And to see if people can pick.
	Because they both look exactly the same.
	And then I want to challenge people's understanding that, you know...
	On one end, one side's going to call it a terrorist attack when it happens against them, and the other side's going to call it a terrorist attack against them, and both sides are incorrect, right?
	Because we live in a hyper-partisan world, and that's what I think is happening.
	You have to understand that both sides are playing you, and whether you're going to accept it or not.
	So that's my thing.
	And I got the Cardi B. Cardi B is suing a YouTuber for calling her a prostitute.
	The rapper Cardi B. And does dinner count as...
	As remuneration or no?
	Am I going to get in trouble for that?
	This is where, jokes aside, de jure versus de facto.
	Prostitution means paying someone for sex.
	Does compensating someone with the anticipation of...
	Where is the line between overt prostitution and just the subversive, discreet prostitution?
	The claim was that she was a straight up like...
	Illegal prostitution.
	Like, she was violating the law.
	She was a prostitute.
	Yeah, they called her a...
	It's a YouTuber with over a million subs.
	Who's the YouTuber?
	I think I know who...
	I think I'll remember the name.
	This is Wine Unwine with Trish.
	It's not the one where they called her a damoiselle, because I remember breaking down...
	Oh, no, that was...
	Oh, geez.
	Candace Owens calling that other person...
	I'm a damoiselle, and I didn't know what that meant at the time.
	Yeah, I'm still wondering how Candace Owens' situation is interesting, too, because she got into Madison Square Garden.
	She went to the USC event, and she said she's unvaccinated.
	But here, you can't get into any place unless you're unvaccinated.
	So maybe she used a religious exemption or something.
	I don't know, but it's interesting how she got into that event.
	But maybe she used a religious exemption she got through.
	But she said she had an exemption.
	She doesn't say which one it is.
	On that note, it says, what does Nate suggest those of us who By the way, rumor, and I hope it's wrong, is that Supreme Leader Francois Legault in Quebec is going to make vaccine requirements mandatory for the next election.
	They're not going to call off an election like...
	Another dictator.
	They're not going to use emergency powers to postpone elections like another mustache dictator.
	They're just going to say, have your elections, but the only people who can vote...
	Or those who necessarily adhere to my ideological philosophies based on vaccination status.
	You guys are crazy up there.
	Like, you have to be vaxxed to vote?
	That's ridiculous.
	Yeah, that's too much, though.
	That's too much.
	That's going to another level, though, Viva.
	You'd think that's too much, as you would think that a tax on the unvaxxed would be too much.
	But apparently, hey, trust the state media, 60% of Canadians, or whatever.
	People support it.
	Damn, that's crazy.
	Summer of Love killed 100,000 people.
	That was Sotomayor.
	Yeah, that was bad.
	That was horrible.
	But the thing is, I always think we get too hyper-literal when we talk because, you know, I've watched Supreme Court arguments many times and I've seen Supreme Court, like Scalia, go off the rails and say something crazy.
	You know, it happens all the time.
	But she should have been more careful than 100,000 kids on ventilator.
	That was, like, ridiculously bad.
	Like, come on, you know?
	Like, really?
	And you know everybody's listening to you, too.
	No, that's it.
	And it's not a slip-up.
	Like, 750 million versus 750,000 is a slip-up.
	That's a mistake.
	Yeah, that was a mistake.
	The 100,000, there's no comparison by which to compare.
	That was just made up.
	Fabricated.
	By the way, by the way, everyone watching right now, News with Booze.
	Oh, sorry, let me take this one down here.
	Okay, News with Booze.
	Eric Hunley is going live with News with Booze.
	Now, let me see.
	He's going live on his channel.
	It's laid-back news.
	I hope it's laid-back news.
	Eric Henley at 9 o 'clock is going live.
	So everyone who's here now, check it out if you want to have another continuation of stuff.
	I'm going to try to get the link and put it in the chat before I leave.
	Eric, if you're watching, I know you sent it to me.
	Oh, I can't tune in, Eric.
	I'm just going to go get the...
	It's laid-back news.
	So laid-back news.
	It was Eric Henley's former channel.
	They're live at 9 o 'clock with Alison Morrow.
	Laid-back news.
	I've got a lobster upstairs to go.
	Yeah, I have to run to because the children are bad.
	Yeah, I hear them running but not crying, which is a good sign.
	So we've got 10...
	Bring the lobster down so we can have our class of biology today!
	Apparently the lobster is still alive.
	First, I want to thank you for having me.
	I want to thank the chat for not being too mean to me and beating me up.
	I know I said a lot of things that make people mad, but it happens to be that way.
	And hopefully, you know, it just is what it is.
	Here's the thing, by the way.
	You can disagree with someone without disagreeing with someone.
	Yeah, I think you make some oversimplified arguments.
	First of all, I want to remember this.
	Salty in Atlantis says, remember?
	They said it's not HIPAA violation.
	However, one could reverse engineer based on dates and cards.
	Okay, fine.
	Thank you.
	Here's the thing.
	I can disagree with Nate on a lot of things, but you can disagree with someone without disagreeing with someone.
	And by the way, not that we're living large.
	This was homeschooling for the day.
	And I've got to cook this tonight.
	I forgot we had a stream.
	Check it out.
	Children?
	It pooped in the tank.
	It's a big poop.
	We've got a lobster.
	And they don't understand that we've got to put this thing in a pot.
	There's straight up poop in the bottom.
	Do you see that poop?
	They were asking, how do lobsters poop?
	And I said, lobsters are crustaceans.
	You never said that.
	I said it to someone else.
	Why are your cheeks so red?
	We just went outside.
	There's water on my computer.
	That's a bad thing.
	Take this out of here.
	Take this.
	Don't spill it.
	No, no, no.
	Okay, fine, fine.
	Let's put it down.
	So, put it down.
	So, that was our...
	I took one kid, just so everybody knows.
	This is what happens when you have three kids at school homeschooling.
	Yeah.
	I took one kid for a drive.
	Because he only had one class.
	And he fell asleep.
	We went to a market to get stuff.
	My phone, don't worry about that.
	I don't care about that.
	I care about my computer.
	Anyways, we're going to go.
	We got a pet for the day.
	And now we're going to go eat our pet.
	Are you ready to watch me eat the pet?
	I would never eat with them.
	Dogs?
	I don't think it would be that appetizing.
	So, with that said, people, I believe Eric Conley might have just tweeted me.
	He says, oh, Golden Globes Ghost Town.
	I'm going to share a couple of links.
	People.
	Eric, go watch Eric Hundley now if anyone's so inclined.
	We're going to go cook our pet.
	And Nate, where can people find you people?
	Google, type in Nate the Lord to any YouTube search bar and I'm there.
	And, you know, hopefully we can have some fun.
	But, you know, I always feel like it is what it is because I know I'm hard.
	It's hard to...
	You can remind me of my kids.
	I'm a hard thing to swallow, but I'm a hard pill to swallow.
	But it is what it is.
	I just want people to understand this.
	You can disagree with someone on issues, but if you think someone's fundamentally dishonest, then you stop listening to them or you listen to them to know your enemy.
	I know you, Nate.
	I like you, Nate.
	My only desire is that one day we can meet again.
	I like you, and I do not think you're dishonest.
	I think you...
	Occasionally, straw man, I think you occasionally engage in hyperbolic arguments, as do I, period.
	But I do not think you're dishonest, and anybody who says you're dishonest, I know you better than they know you.
	He's dishonest!
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Well, no, no, it's, you know...
	He's touching the damn thermostat!
	I think everybody wants to live in an echo chamber and I'm just not an echo chamber.
	I understand that.
	But listen, I still love everybody and I'm still going to do my thing.
	Hopefully everybody can do their thing.
	If everybody wants to come and check it out.
	We know where you are on YouTube.
	Where are you on Locals, sir?
	NateTheLaurie.Locals.com.
	Boom, boom, boom.
	the Lord.
	All right.
	That's that.
	I think we're going to say I'm probably.
	I didn't get to the super chats.
	I didn't get to all of them.
	Thank you very much.
	We're going to go cook a pet after this and I'm going to eat it.
	It's a lobster.
	Nate, stick around.
	This is why you can't have kids on the live stream.
	I can't even end it.

▲