Re: Answer these:
« Reply #60 on: February 09, 2017, 10:54:48 AM »
Every assassination of a US president has never been conclusively proven to be some kind of "conspiracy". Lenin wasn't that bad of a guy, Stalin and Mao were despotic dictators that weren't elected and didn't leave their office until death, there's no parallel you can draw between them and any president.

I honestly believe you are simply demonstrating the depth of your close-minded narrow view of the OS.

You lick the OS like it is your favorite lollipop.

Yeah, not elected, but only because elections do not take place.

You probably believe the candidates running for national offices are the honest to goodness real deal...

You keep asking for proof for something that is plain as the nose on your face.

It just so happens that nose is conveniently buried in the _ _ _ of your reality.

You are getting the stink face treatment from the MSM and you love it.
Give me proof that the elections are fake. Everything I've seen seems to support them

Proof...

You believe the options for national offices, such as POTUS, are legitimately the best the country has to offer?

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Answer these:
« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2017, 01:51:00 PM »
Every assassination of a US president has never been conclusively proven to be some kind of "conspiracy". Lenin wasn't that bad of a guy, Stalin and Mao were despotic dictators that weren't elected and didn't leave their office until death, there's no parallel you can draw between them and any president.

I honestly believe you are simply demonstrating the depth of your close-minded narrow view of the OS.

You lick the OS like it is your favorite lollipop.

Yeah, not elected, but only because elections do not take place.

You probably believe the candidates running for national offices are the honest to goodness real deal...

You keep asking for proof for something that is plain as the nose on your face.

It just so happens that nose is conveniently buried in the _ _ _ of your reality.

You are getting the stink face treatment from the MSM and you love it.
Give me proof that the elections are fake. Everything I've seen seems to support them

Proof...

You believe the options for national offices, such as POTUS, are legitimately the best the country has to offer?
The POTUS is the Supreme Commander of the military, he can stop laws from passing with a veto, and he can pass executive orders. Pretty powerful if you ask me, especially considering that being POTUS gives you a LOT of influence over many people. It is, after all, the highest office in the land. And if you tell me that there is some kind of secret position even more powerful than POTUS, I'll need to see some evidence backing that up. All I've seen is your opinions in this thread. You haven't given a single fact or figure. Contrary to your belief, some wikipedia articles are completely valid, if they have several well-cited sources. I still have yet to see a single proof of what you believe, once I see that I'll consider it, for now I'll laugh you of as some stupid crazy person on the internet. Give me valid cited resources.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #62 on: February 09, 2017, 03:46:59 PM »
The POTUS is the Supreme Commander of the military, he can stop laws from passing with a veto, and he can pass executive orders. Pretty powerful if you ask me, especially considering that being POTUS gives you a LOT of influence over many people. It is, after all, the highest office in the land. And if you tell me that there is some kind of secret position even more powerful than POTUS, I'll need to see some evidence backing that up. All I've seen is your opinions in this thread. You haven't given a single fact or figure. Contrary to your belief, some wikipedia articles are completely valid, if they have several well-cited sources. I still have yet to see a single proof of what you believe, once I see that I'll consider it, for now I'll laugh you of as some stupid crazy person on the internet. Give me valid cited resources.

Answer the question.

Do you believe the choices offered during the primaries and subsequent general elections are the most legitimate candidates available?

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Answer these:
« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2017, 05:25:38 PM »
The POTUS is the Supreme Commander of the military, he can stop laws from passing with a veto, and he can pass executive orders. Pretty powerful if you ask me, especially considering that being POTUS gives you a LOT of influence over many people. It is, after all, the highest office in the land. And if you tell me that there is some kind of secret position even more powerful than POTUS, I'll need to see some evidence backing that up. All I've seen is your opinions in this thread. You haven't given a single fact or figure. Contrary to your belief, some wikipedia articles are completely valid, if they have several well-cited sources. I still have yet to see a single proof of what you believe, once I see that I'll consider it, for now I'll laugh you of as some stupid crazy person on the internet. Give me valid cited resources.

Answer the question.

Do you believe the choices offered during the primaries and subsequent general elections are the most legitimate candidates available?
I don't like some of the candidates, but they are just legitimate people who are running for office. You again have no evidence that they aren't.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2017, 12:03:10 PM »
The POTUS is the Supreme Commander of the military, he can stop laws from passing with a veto, and he can pass executive orders. Pretty powerful if you ask me, especially considering that being POTUS gives you a LOT of influence over many people. It is, after all, the highest office in the land. And if you tell me that there is some kind of secret position even more powerful than POTUS, I'll need to see some evidence backing that up. All I've seen is your opinions in this thread. You haven't given a single fact or figure. Contrary to your belief, some wikipedia articles are completely valid, if they have several well-cited sources. I still have yet to see a single proof of what you believe, once I see that I'll consider it, for now I'll laugh you of as some stupid crazy person on the internet. Give me valid cited resources.

Answer the question.

Do you believe the choices offered during the primaries and subsequent general elections are the most legitimate candidates available?
I don't like some of the candidates, but they are just legitimate people who are running for office. You again have no evidence that they aren't.

The question has nothing to do with the reality of the candidates.

Stop being purposefully obtuse and acting like a total _ _ _ _ _ _ on the point.

You raised the point and I countered it offering a different view of the mechanisms in place.

The reality is the candidates offered up in each election are not chosen by the people and you know it.

They are chosen by SOME PEOPLE.

And it is that group of SOME PEOPLE that are really calling the shots.

And that GROUP have consolidated their power and have passed it along to subsequent generations.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Answer these:
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2017, 01:37:05 PM »
The POTUS is the Supreme Commander of the military, he can stop laws from passing with a veto, and he can pass executive orders. Pretty powerful if you ask me, especially considering that being POTUS gives you a LOT of influence over many people. It is, after all, the highest office in the land. And if you tell me that there is some kind of secret position even more powerful than POTUS, I'll need to see some evidence backing that up. All I've seen is your opinions in this thread. You haven't given a single fact or figure. Contrary to your belief, some wikipedia articles are completely valid, if they have several well-cited sources. I still have yet to see a single proof of what you believe, once I see that I'll consider it, for now I'll laugh you of as some stupid crazy person on the internet. Give me valid cited resources.

Answer the question.

Do you believe the choices offered during the primaries and subsequent general elections are the most legitimate candidates available?
I don't like some of the candidates, but they are just legitimate people who are running for office. You again have no evidence that they aren't.

The question has nothing to do with the reality of the candidates.

Stop being purposefully obtuse and acting like a total _ _ _ _ _ _ on the point.

You raised the point and I countered it offering a different view of the mechanisms in place.

The reality is the candidates offered up in each election are not chosen by the people and you know it.

They are chosen by SOME PEOPLE.

And it is that group of SOME PEOPLE that are really calling the shots.

And that GROUP have consolidated their power and have passed it along to subsequent generations.
Do you have any evidence of such? If you don't then I require no evidence to deny your claims.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #66 on: February 10, 2017, 02:48:06 PM »
Do you have any evidence of such? If you don't then I require no evidence to deny your claims.

Evidence of what?

You conceded the candidates are not eminently qualified nor popular, yet those types of candidates are presented year in and year out.

You deny the existence of power brokering?

You keep asking for proof of things you acknowledge.

WTH is the matter with you?

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Answer these:
« Reply #67 on: February 10, 2017, 04:21:55 PM »
Do you have any evidence of such? If you don't then I require no evidence to deny your claims.

Evidence of what?

You conceded the candidates are not eminently qualified nor popular, yet those types of candidates are presented year in and year out.

You deny the existence of power brokering?

You keep asking for proof of things you acknowledge.

WTH is the matter with you?
No, I simply acknowledge that the candidates that were presented this year in the general election, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, were not to my liking. Some years an individual may like the candidate(s), some years they may not, this year I liked neither, but most people apparently did. A sample size of 1, me, is not at all indicative of the popularity of the presidential candidates. Furthermore, the two candidates this year were qualified, with Hillary Clinton having extensive government experience and Donald Trump being a good organizer of business, a skill that can be projected to politics. I never once said that every year the candidates aren't popular or qualified, take for example Ronald Reagan. Extremely popular, extremely qualified. In the 2012 election, I didn't per se like Barack Obama as a candidate, I preferred Mitt Romney, but I felt that in that election I would be fine with the results either way. You again say that I agree that the candidates are unqualified and unpopular (A viewpoint I don't have, for many reasons, chief among them being that they were ELECTED). Again, do you have evidence of this power brokering? Give me evidence of such and I'll consider it, until I have cited sources and such I won't take any of your statements as truth. Please don't twist my words, if you interpret my words a certain way make a quote that displays that.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #68 on: February 10, 2017, 04:38:48 PM »
Again, do you have evidence of this power brokering? Give me evidence of such and I'll consider it, until I have cited sources and such I won't take any of your statements as truth. Please don't twist my words, if you interpret my words a certain way make a quote that displays that.

I am not twisting your words.

The fact the candidates are trotted out as choices of the year or choices of the month or whatever time frame you choose is the proof of the power brokering.

My god, you are arguing simply to argue.

I offered an alternative view and interpretation relative to world events.

You choose the OS.

Nothing wrong with that.

It is simple, easy, and probably provides you and many others a great deal of comfort and relaxation.

You keep asking for proof when all you have provided is evidence.

I have my own interpretation of the evidence and that is all. I am not alone in my interpretation nor am I in the majority.

I can live with that the same as you can live with yours.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Answer these:
« Reply #69 on: February 10, 2017, 05:26:43 PM »
Again, do you have evidence of this power brokering? Give me evidence of such and I'll consider it, until I have cited sources and such I won't take any of your statements as truth. Please don't twist my words, if you interpret my words a certain way make a quote that displays that.

I am not twisting your words.

The fact the candidates are trotted out as choices of the year or choices of the month or whatever time frame you choose is the proof of the power brokering.

My god, you are arguing simply to argue.

I offered an alternative view and interpretation relative to world events.

You choose the OS.

Nothing wrong with that.

It is simple, easy, and probably provides you and many others a great deal of comfort and relaxation.

You keep asking for proof when all you have provided is evidence.

I have my own interpretation of the evidence and that is all. I am not alone in my interpretation nor am I in the majority.

I can live with that the same as you can live with yours.
Give me evidence your idea is correct.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #70 on: February 10, 2017, 05:41:13 PM »
Give me evidence your idea is correct.

The evidence you provided is the same evidence I provided.


My contention is your interpretation of that evidence is lacking steps.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Answer these:
« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2017, 03:33:13 PM »
Give me evidence your idea is correct.

The evidence you provided is the same evidence I provided.


My contention is your interpretation of that evidence is lacking steps.
You're again spewing gibberish. Give me facts and figures.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #72 on: February 12, 2017, 08:00:19 PM »
You have posted it.

It is your interpretation of the events and reports that are lacking in depth and vetting.

That is my opinion.

Your opinion is different.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Answer these:
« Reply #73 on: February 13, 2017, 01:56:11 PM »
You have posted it.

It is your interpretation of the events and reports that are lacking in depth and vetting.

That is my opinion.

Your opinion is different.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Your opinion is WRONG. That's why I won't acknowledge it. If you have nothing to say, let someone else put up an argument against my original post.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #74 on: February 13, 2017, 05:59:36 PM »
You have posted it.

It is your interpretation of the events and reports that are lacking in depth and vetting.

That is my opinion.

Your opinion is different.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Your opinion is WRONG. That's why I won't acknowledge it. If you have nothing to say, let someone else put up an argument against my original post.

You are looking really desperate and sad right now Rekt. How can you tell someone their opinion is wrong? He gave you his interpretation of things, and his reasons behind his interpretations. All you are doing is shouting "Nah Uh!" like a petulant child.

He has no reason to want to convince you, and he isn't even pushing his ideas on you, you are begging him for them. I don't usually do this, and I HATE when other people use terms like this, but if this isn't the most clear cut case of cognitive dissonance I've seen on TFES than I don't know what is.

Feel free to continue to believe what you want, and lackey will do the same. You demanding more from him is selfish and would be a waste of his time considering you have no true intention to understand, just deny and ridicule. Just being a combative pain in the dick isn't exactly "Rek"ing anyone.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Answer these:
« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2017, 01:42:54 PM »
You have posted it.

It is your interpretation of the events and reports that are lacking in depth and vetting.

That is my opinion.

Your opinion is different.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Your opinion is WRONG. That's why I won't acknowledge it. If you have nothing to say, let someone else put up an argument against my original post.

You are looking really desperate and sad right now Rekt. How can you tell someone their opinion is wrong? He gave you his interpretation of things, and his reasons behind his interpretations. All you are doing is shouting "Nah Uh!" like a petulant child.

He has no reason to want to convince you, and he isn't even pushing his ideas on you, you are begging him for them. I don't usually do this, and I HATE when other people use terms like this, but if this isn't the most clear cut case of cognitive dissonance I've seen on TFES than I don't know what is.

Feel free to continue to believe what you want, and lackey will do the same. You demanding more from him is selfish and would be a waste of his time considering you have no true intention to understand, just deny and ridicule. Just being a combative pain in the dick isn't exactly "Rek"ing anyone.
I want to know his opinions and his support for them, which he is supposedly using to disprove my statements. I still haven't seen a single rebuttal with EVIDENCE to these, all that you've put up are thoughts.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2017, 04:58:10 PM »
Your opinion is WRONG. That's why I won't acknowledge it. If you have nothing to say, let someone else put up an argument against my original post.

Thanks for acknowledging your intolerance.

You are dismissed.

Re: Answer these:
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2017, 05:03:54 PM »
I want to know his opinions and his support for them, which he is supposedly using to disprove my statements. I still haven't seen a single rebuttal with EVIDENCE to these, all that you've put up are thoughts.

I have provided my opinions.

I have provided the support.

The evidence I use is the same evidence you use.

I interpret the evidence differently than you.

You do not offer even offer an interpretation of the evidence, nor do you provide a full background of the events and subsequent outcomes analysis.

Really, I am through with you, except to ridicule and demean your very existence in the forum entitled Angry Ranting.

You deserve nothing else.