The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Rekt on January 23, 2017, 11:52:22 PM
-
So flat earthers, answer these simple questions:
How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?
What is the motive to cover up the flat earth?
If the earth isn't a planet, your explanation for how everything else is round but earth isn't, isn't that quite the human-centric point of view? Are all of you so arrogant that you truly believe that Earth and humanity is all that matters?
How does even but by when though?
-
Yawn.
We have a plethora of resources ranging from wikis to online documentation to forum archives. Your questions are largely unoriginal and largely answered, so feel free to peek around and satisfy your curiosity.
How does even but by when though?
Yes.
-
Yawn.
We have a plethora of resources ranging from wikis to online documentation to forum archives. Your questions are largely unoriginal and largely answered, so feel free to peek around and satisfy your curiosity.
How does even but by when though?
Yes.
Your wiki largely redirects to articles that I've already read. If you have all this info, then tell me it.
-
If the earth isn't a planet, your explanation for how everything else is round but earth isn't, isn't that quite the human-centric point of view?
I have 5 pieces of furniture in my room. Four of them are chairs. Naturally, the fifth item couldn't possibly be a table! That would be so table-centric! Are you truly so arrogant as to claim that the fifth thing might be different from these four things!?
There are nine animals in this pet store. Eight of them are cats. How dare you suggest that the last animal, the one located in a bird cage, might be anything other than a cat?! How bird-centric of you!
The Earth is not other planets. Observing other planets can lead us to educated guesses about the Earth, but it constitutes no proof. Your logic relies on applying inductive reasoning in a completely inappropriate scenario.
How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?
What is the motive to cover up the flat earth?
How does even but by when though?
For your first two questions: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
For the last question: Sorry, I did not understand you.
-
If the earth isn't a planet, your explanation for how everything else is round but earth isn't, isn't that quite the human-centric point of view?
I have 5 pieces of furniture in my room. Four of them are chairs. Naturally, the fifth item couldn't possibly be a table! That would be so table-centric! Are you truly so arrogant as to claim that the fifth thing might be different from these four things!?
There are nine animals in this pet store. Eight of them are cats. How dare you suggest that the last animal, the one located in a bird cage, might be anything other than a cat?! How bird-centric of you!
The Earth is not other planets. Observing other planets can lead us to educated guesses about the Earth, but it constitutes no proof. Your logic relies on applying inductive reasoning in a completely inappropriate scenario.
How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?
What is the motive to cover up the flat earth?
How does even but by when though?
For your first two questions: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
For the last question: Sorry, I did not understand you.
Again, this is a bad explanation. It only says that NASA missions are fake, and does not explain how the USSR didn't discredit them. It again does not give a motive for non-nasa round earth ideas, as there is no actual reason to cover up flat earth. If your entire theory hinges on a conspiracy with no motive I refuse your theory.
-
What about all the other missions of all the other space agencies of all the other nations of the world ?
Are they all fakes, too ?
-
What about all the other missions of all the other space agencies of all the other nations of the world ?
Are they all fakes, too ?
Typical flat earthers. When they hit a question they can't answer, they abandon the thread.
-
What about all the other missions of all the other space agencies of all the other nations of the world ?
Are they all fakes, too ?
Typical flat earthers. When they hit a question they can't answer, they abandon the thread.
It's been a day since the last post. I don't think you understand what the word abandon means.
Stop with off-topic/low-content in the upper fora. This will be the last warning I give you.
-
Again, can I get a serious answer to at least my first question? Why the USSR didn't expose all NASA missions being fake? That alone destroys most NASA conspiracies, and hasn't been answered. Someone who had a lot more time, manpower, resources, and brainpower than you and a HUGE motive to disprove NASA didn't. Is that just the global Zionist conspiracy or something?
-
Why the USSR didn't expose all NASA missions being fake? That alone destroys most NASA conspiracies, and hasn't been answered. Someone who had a lot more time, manpower, resources, and brainpower than you and a HUGE motive to disprove NASA didn't. Is that just the global Zionist conspiracy or something?
If the USSR dismantled the authenticity or legitimacy of NASA and their work, then the USSR wouldn't be able to employ their own space programs and such. It was a self-protectionist move, probably based on an ideal of scientific achievement, militaristic dominance, and "globularist" power.
No, it has nothing to do with a planar Zionist conspiracy. The Jews have hardly anything to do with it and the conspiracy is likely smaller than you think.
-
Why the USSR didn't expose all NASA missions being fake? That alone destroys most NASA conspiracies, and hasn't been answered. Someone who had a lot more time, manpower, resources, and brainpower than you and a HUGE motive to disprove NASA didn't. Is that just the global Zionist conspiracy or something?
If the USSR dismantled the authenticity or legitimacy of NASA and their work, then the USSR wouldn't be able to employ their own space programs and such. It was a self-protectionist move, probably based on an ideal of scientific achievement, militaristic dominance, and "globularist" power.
No, it has nothing to do with a planar Zionist conspiracy. The Jews have hardly anything to do with it and the conspiracy is likely smaller than you think.
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply in this situation. As the Soviets "claimed" to go first, why didn't NASA dismantle their fake, and call out Sputnik 1?
-
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply in this situation. As the Soviets "claimed" to go first, why didn't NASA dismantle their fake, and call out Sputnik 1?
Mutually assured destruction does apply in this case, even if you inverted the roles of the US and USSR in their situations.
As well, satellites are very real. A little beeping probe like Sputnik 1 most likely wasn't a fake. I take issue with other space endeavors like the ISS and the moon landings.
-
If it helps, I think you may be assuming that all these space agencies knew that the earth was flat, and therefore knew that every claim of space exploration was a lie. That almost certainly wasn't the case back then. Nowadays, I'm sure they realize that prolonged space travel is impossible (and possibly even that the earth is flat, although I personally doubt that they'd have the inclination or scientific rigor to figure it out) and that other space agencies must be lying too, but back in the fifties and sixties, for all they knew, they were the only ones who couldn't properly explore space.
-
If it helps, I think you may be assuming that all these space agencies knew that the earth was flat, and therefore knew that every claim of space exploration was a lie. That almost certainly wasn't the case back then. Nowadays, I'm sure they realize that prolonged space travel is impossible (and possibly even that the earth is flat, although I personally doubt that they'd have the inclination or scientific rigor to figure it out) and that other space agencies must be lying too, but back in the fifties and sixties, for all they knew, they were the only ones who couldn't properly explore space.
That's a very fair point. I hadn't considered that angle.
-
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply in this situation. As the Soviets "claimed" to go first, why didn't NASA dismantle their fake, and call out Sputnik 1?
Mutually assured destruction does apply in this case, even if you inverted the roles of the US and USSR in their situations.
As well, satellites are very real. A little beeping probe like Sputnik 1 most likely wasn't a fake. I take issue with other space endeavors like the ISS and the moon landings.
But the ISS works on the EXACT SAME principle as Sputnik 1. It is in the SAME orbital area! Its orbit is very similar!
-
But the ISS works on the EXACT SAME principle as Sputnik 1. It is in the SAME orbital area! Its orbit is very similar!
I haven't denied the existence of the ISS. I've denied the imagined existence of the ISS, that people live on it and that it is a space station.
It is merely a satellite.
-
But the ISS works on the EXACT SAME principle as Sputnik 1. It is in the SAME orbital area! Its orbit is very similar!
I haven't denied the existence of the ISS. I've denied the imagined existence of the ISS, that people live on it and that it is a space station.
It is merely a satellite.
Why have you denied its existence? On what grounds?
-
Why have you denied its existence? On what grounds?
I haven't denied the existence of the ISS.
Did you read my last post? Please try again.
-
Why have you denied its existence? On what grounds?
I haven't denied the existence of the ISS.
Did you read my last post? Please try again.
Well then why do you deny that it's habitable? What are the videos of people inside of it?
-
What are the videos of people inside of it?
You saw Gravity, right? How about Apollo 13? If they can fake all of that, they sure as hell can fake the "inside" of the ISS, which usually involves a couple of people floating through and around aesthetically chaotic metal tubes.
-
What are the videos of people inside of it?
You saw Gravity, right? How about Apollo 13? If they can fake all of that, they sure as hell can fake the "inside" of the ISS, which usually involves a couple of people floating through and around aesthetically chaotic metal tubes.
But the thing is, those cuts are much shorter, in smaller areas, and with less quality/detail. What about it do you reject? If you believe in satellites, then what about a man? Why not a space station? Why not land on the moon? It all works on the same principles, just with heavier payloads and bigger rockets. Putting a man in space is nothing more than having to lift the weight of him, the equipment required to keep him alive, and a way to get back down safely. And if you say you can't keep a man alive in space, think about deep-sea diving spheres and such. It works in much the same way, just holding the air in rather than water out. It's really nothing monumental to get a man into space, mathematically it's just a heavier payload, and scaled up all the way to the International Space Station, a lot of REALLY heavy payloads. If you say they couldn't get the ISS up there, it was shipped in small parts, all put into the exact same orbit, so that they would intersect, and then they were connected, basically.
-
But the ISS works on the EXACT SAME principle as Sputnik 1. It is in the SAME orbital area! Its orbit is very similar!
I haven't denied the existence of the ISS. I've denied the imagined existence of the ISS, that people live on it and that it is a space station.
It is merely a satellite.
Please explain the mechanism of a satellites "orbiting" the Flat Earth. What holds them up? ;D A "seepage of dark energy" ;D that somehow does not affect aircraft, etc?
The X-15 "flew" to over 67 miles and still "fell" back down, yet at 200 miles altitude something magical holds satellites up there over the Flat Earth.
Now that I find unbelievable!
-
Please explain the mechanism of a satellites "orbiting" the Flat Earth. What holds them up?
The sun and the moon are held up in a circular system, so satellites likely attach themselves, at least in some capacity, to that same system. Mind you, satellites are much smaller, too.
-
Please explain the mechanism of a satellites "orbiting" the Flat Earth. What holds them up?
The sun and the moon are held up in a circular system, so satellites likely attach themselves, at least in some capacity, to that same system. Mind you, satellites are much smaller, too.
Orbit is caused by the craft going so fast that it falls towards the earth but misses every time
-
Please explain the mechanism of a satellite's "orbiting" the Flat Earth. What holds them up?
The sun and the moon are held up in a circular system, so satellites likely attach themselves, at least in some capacity, to that same system. Mind you, satellites are much smaller, too.
Prove it!
-
"How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?"
LMFAO!!!
Another in the long line of OS believers!!!
Hey, totalitarians of a feather stick together...
This guy buys into the COLD WAR!!!
LMFAO!!!
-
"How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?"
LMFAO!!!
Another in the long line of OS believers!!!
Hey, totalitarians of a feather stick together...
This guy buys into the COLD WAR!!!
LMFAO!!!
I'm not sure if this is satire, but if it isn't, then you are LITERALLY retarded. You CANNOT, in ANY capacity, deny that the cold war happened. If you do, your position is a futile one.
-
"How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?"
LMFAO!!!
Another in the long line of OS believers!!!
Hey, totalitarians of a feather stick together...
This guy buys into the COLD WAR!!!
LMFAO!!!
I'm not sure if this is satire, but if it isn't, then you are LITERALLY retarded. You CANNOT, in ANY capacity, deny that the cold war happened. If you do, your position is a futile one.
I am not denying the fact propaganda pushed the nonsense Cold War, but if you believe all the world rulers are not in on robbing and stealing from the masses and are not truly in cahoots then you are behaving like a symp.
Don't come one here peddling a bull shit line about the Cold War was for real.
It certainly was reported and there were certainly real persons, but as far as actual threats from each other?
No.
It was as real as Monday Night Raw or an NBA basketball game.
You really, truly do need to get a clue dude.
-
"How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?"
LMFAO!!!
Another in the long line of OS believers!!!
Hey, totalitarians of a feather stick together...
This guy buys into the COLD WAR!!!
LMFAO!!!
I'm not sure if this is satire, but if it isn't, then you are LITERALLY retarded. You CANNOT, in ANY capacity, deny that the cold war happened. If you do, your position is a futile one.
I am not denying the fact propaganda pushed the nonsense Cold War, but if you believe all the world rulers are not in on robbing and stealing from the masses and are not truly in cahoots then you are behaving like a symp.
Don't come one here peddling a bull shit line about the Cold War was for real.
It certainly was reported and there were certainly real persons, but as far as actual threats from each other?
No.
It was as real as Monday Night Raw or an NBA basketball game.
You really, truly do need to get a clue dude.
I am now 100% convinced this is bait. Come back with a real argument. You're saying that all news and memories of the cold war were just the two governments in cahoots?
-
I am now 100% convinced this is bait. Come back with a real argument. You're saying that all news and memories of the cold war were just the two governments in cahoots?
It is not bait.
The Cold War story, and every other "They are the enemy," was the bait.
Always has been, always will be.
Two former allies now at each others' throat!
OMG! What to do!?!?!
The people in office have one job and that is to peddle fear and superstition on the masses to keep them in line.
ORANGE ALERT!!!
You suck that stuff up like it is real!
-
I am now 100% convinced this is bait. Come back with a real argument. You're saying that all news and memories of the cold war were just the two governments in cahoots?
It is not bait.
The Cold War story, and every other "They are the enemy," was the bait.
Always has been, always will be.
Two former allies now at each others' throat!
OMG! What to do!?!?!
The people in office have one job and that is to peddle fear and superstition on the masses to keep them in line.
ORANGE ALERT!!!
You suck that stuff up like it is real!
Give me evidence that the cold war isn't real.
-
Give me evidence that the cold war isn't real.
You are asking for evidence for something that "isn't," ?
Are you familiar with the term, "PROPOGANDA?"
Describe the role in which it is used and its effects on gullible masses.
-
Give me evidence that the cold war isn't real.
You are asking for evidence for something that "isn't," ?
Are you familiar with the term, "PROPOGANDA?"
Describe the role in which it is used and its effects on gullible masses.
Do you seriously expect me to just discount Vietnam, Korea, the nuclear program, the Soviet Union, buildup in Europe, strategic bomber forces, and air raid drills as all just being "Propaganda?" (Which you spelled wrong). You can't deny 2 major wars and the huge amount of strategic arms produced. Are you going to say that the Berlin Airlift was a fake? Ask anyone who lived in West Germany, or East Germany, for that, what they think about the cold war being "Propaganda".
-
Do you seriously expect me to just discount Vietnam, Korea, the nuclear program, the Soviet Union, buildup in Europe, strategic bomber forces, and air raid drills as all just being "Propaganda?" (Which you spelled wrong). You can't deny 2 major wars and the huge amount of strategic arms produced. Are you going to say that the Berlin Airlift was a fake? Ask anyone who lived in West Germany, or East Germany, for that, what they think about the cold war being "Propaganda".
I am not denying the reporting of the day.
And yeah, it was all propaganda.
Effective propaganda because of people like you, who dare not question authority.
You ask them.
I do not need to ask them.
Like I wrote earlier, the masses buy this crap on a daily basis, simply due to the 80/20 rule.
Most people do not want any drama in their lives and are simply living their lives trying to survive and do not bother themselves with much else.
And yeah, I spelled propaganda wrong.
Whooptee...
I noticed you got a few days off so try and take the time to come up with some other POV that is not so easily smashed.
-
Do you seriously expect me to just discount Vietnam, Korea, the nuclear program, the Soviet Union, buildup in Europe, strategic bomber forces, and air raid drills as all just being "Propaganda?" (Which you spelled wrong). You can't deny 2 major wars and the huge amount of strategic arms produced. Are you going to say that the Berlin Airlift was a fake? Ask anyone who lived in West Germany, or East Germany, for that, what they think about the cold war being "Propaganda".
I am not denying the reporting of the day.
And yeah, it was all propaganda.
Effective propaganda because of people like you, who dare not question authority.
You ask them.
I do not need to ask them.
Like I wrote earlier, the masses buy this crap on a daily basis, simply due to the 80/20 rule.
Most people do not want any drama in their lives and are simply living their lives trying to survive and do not bother themselves with much else.
A real know-it-all aren't? You claim all that without offering any evidence, other than the say so of Totally Crappy!
I suppose you had family members in the Vietnam conflict. I have a brother in-law who did, he survived by being above a lot of it flying Iroquois helicopters, not that it saved all flight personel.
I suppose the over 3,000 Australian casualties alone were all "propaganda". Tell that to those damaged physically and mentally by the conflict.
Try telling you stupid propaganda ideas to the over 200,000 American casualties, many of whom are no longer able to hear you anyway.
I quite understand concerns over the morality of the war, but it was real enough, no question about it. If you lived through that time and we're of call-up age you wouldn't talk twaddle like that.
You really are an ignorant piece of low-life aren't you.
-
A real know-it-all aren't? You claim all that without offering any evidence, other than the say so of Totally Crappy!
I suppose you had family members in the Vietnam conflict. I have a brother in-law who did, he survived by being above a lot of it flying Iroquois helicopters, not that it saved all flight personel.
I suppose the over 3,000 Australian casualties alone were all "propaganda". Tell that to those damaged physically and mentally by the conflict.
Try telling you stupid propaganda ideas to the over 200,000 American casualties, many of whom are no longer able to hear you anyway.
I quite understand concerns over the morality of the war, but it was real enough, no question about it. If you lived through that time and we're of call-up age you wouldn't talk twaddle like that.
You really are an ignorant piece of low-life aren't you.
Barely missed it myself.
I am not denying the war.
I am not denying all the other crap.
What I am stating in case you missed it:
There was no COLD WAR in terms of governments being MORTAL ENEMIES!
That is all bull shit.
I cannot help it there exist a set of people willing to kill each other in the name of whatever.
Those types of people are called assholes.
You know, the type that buy into the idea one brand of totalitarianism is absolutely better than the other.
-
rabinoz and totallackey are causing this thread to have more derailment than the Great Train Wreck of 1918.
Remember the OP's original post:
So flat earthers, answer these simple questions:
How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?
What is the motive to cover up the flat earth?
If the earth isn't a planet, your explanation for how everything else is round but earth isn't, isn't that quite the human-centric point of view? Are all of you so arrogant that you truly believe that Earth and humanity is all that matters?
How does even but by when though?
Please stay on-topic and stop taking shots at each other. It's angry, low-content posting and this is the upper fora, where that crap isn't tolerated.
-
rabinoz and totallackey are causing this thread to have more derailment than the Great Train Wreck of 1918.
Remember the OP's original post:
So flat earthers, answer these simple questions:
How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?
What is the motive to cover up the flat earth?
If the earth isn't a planet, your explanation for how everything else is round but earth isn't, isn't that quite the human-centric point of view? Are all of you so arrogant that you truly believe that Earth and humanity is all that matters?
How does even but by when though?
Please stay on-topic and stop taking shots at each other. It's angry, low-content posting and this is the upper fora, where that crap isn't tolerated.
Sorry rabbit, Trix are for kids.
My posts are directly related to the point raised in the OP.
That being, the USSR would have "snitched the US out," if the moon landings were not real.
I have heard a lot of crap passed off as truth and this idea that the USSR and the US were at some kind of "odds," is a lot of crap.
-
rabinoz and totallackey are causing this thread to have more derailment than the Great Train Wreck of 1918.
Remember the OP's original post:
So flat earthers, answer these simple questions:
How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?
What is the motive to cover up the flat earth?
If the earth isn't a planet, your explanation for how everything else is round but earth isn't, isn't that quite the human-centric point of view? Are all of you so arrogant that you truly believe that Earth and humanity is all that matters?
How does even but by when though?
Please stay on-topic and stop taking shots at each other. It's angry, low-content posting and this is the upper fora, where that crap isn't tolerated.
Sorry rabbit, Trix are for kids.
My posts are directly related to the point raised in the OP.
That being, the USSR would have "snitched the US out," if the moon landings were not real.
I have heard a lot of crap passed off as truth and this idea that the USSR and the US were at some kind of "odds," is a lot of crap.
But a clear understanding of the whole idea of geopolitics after the Second World War is obviously not evident. There were 3 main conflicts at the end of the second world war: Territory controlled or under influence, border friction, and ideological differences.
First: Territory. The Soviets wanted AS MUCH land as possible as a buffer between them and a resurgent West that may invade them again. They also wanted the industrial heartland of Germany, the Ruhr, which happened to be in the occupation zone of the Western Allies.
The second was the fact that territory DIRECTLY controlled by the U.S., Britain, and France (One side in the cold war), the occupation zone of western Germany, DIRECTLY TOUCHED the territory DIRECTLY controlled by the USSR, the other side of the Cold War. This will create friction, especially when military units are massed in both due to those areas being the final areas pushed to by those massed armies during the endgame of World War 2, and the fact that the occupation governments were militarily based due to the fact that NOBODY trusted Germany after the SECOND time they had tried to take over Europe.
The final contributor that stirs the pots of these two factors are the ESSENTIAL differences in the ideals and ideologies of the two sides. It was democracy and the free market on one side, with authoritative policies and a controlled economy on the other. It was a battle for supremacy of ideals, and even deeper just a competition of who was smarter, stronger, richer, better.
They poked, tussled, sent friends to kill each other, but never truly brought it to a fight, which was averted only due to the sheer power of the weapons that would be used, first the atom bomb and then the hydrogen fusion device. Although they both massed armies of flesh and steel on the borders, and re-constituted their respective Germany, they both knew that if they fought for real it would come to a unquenchable fire erupting in the heart of their each and every city, on both sides, in the cities of everyone, everywhere, until the achievements of civilization and civilization itself were scoured clean, and humans everywhere would die in droves, leaving very few survivors. Not very appealing. But they massed their armies, they marched on parade, NATO trained their warheads on the Fulda Gap, mines were lain that are still only being found today, lines were drawn, the planners sat in their bunkers designed to withstand any bomb, the anxious riflemen and tankers wondered if today would be the day that they would be flown in to meet their pre-prepared equipment in West Germany, and people everywhere were scared for their lives. In the end, it never happened. Nuclear war was averted, the lines were drawn but never used, and the Soviet Army was told to sit still in their barracks as the USSR fell apart around them.
If you say that all of the history books were just media farces, then I am genuinely concerned for your mental health. If you wonder why the Cold War never happened, it's because the weapons were TOO STRONG. It was suicidal to even start. That's why America beats up small 3rd world countries every once in a while, to release our Cold War residual anger. The Soviets released it on themselves in the early '90s.
So the cold war was all to real. If you really think that it was all a media farce, you're dumb.
-
ideological differences.
You could have simply posted this...
And those ideological differences did boil down, have boiled down, and will boil down, to one thing and one thing only...
Which brand of totalitarian rule will be exercised in order to extract the most amount of wealth from the people.
All the rest is simply the surrounding drama.
Yeah, it is news and heartbreaking for those involved at the time, but one does not need to partake.
One can simply raise the middle finger.
First: Territory. The Soviets wanted AS MUCH land as possible as a buffer between them and a resurgent West that may invade them again. They also wanted the industrial heartland of Germany, the Ruhr, which happened to be in the occupation zone of the Western Allies.
The second was the fact that territory DIRECTLY controlled by the U.S., Britain, and France (One side in the cold war), the occupation zone of western Germany, DIRECTLY TOUCHED the territory DIRECTLY controlled by the USSR, the other side of the Cold War. This will create friction, especially when military units are massed in both due to those areas being the final areas pushed to by those massed armies during the endgame of World War 2, and the fact that the occupation governments were militarily based due to the fact that NOBODY trusted Germany after the SECOND time they had tried to take over Europe.
The final contributor that stirs the pots of these two factors are the ESSENTIAL differences in the ideals and ideologies of the two sides. It was democracy and the free market on one side, with authoritative policies and a controlled economy on the other. It was a battle for supremacy of ideals, and even deeper just a competition of who was smarter, stronger, richer, better.
They poked, tussled, sent friends to kill each other, but never truly brought it to a fight, which was averted only due to the sheer power of the weapons that would be used, first the atom bomb and then the hydrogen fusion device. Although they both massed armies of flesh and steel on the borders, and re-constituted their respective Germany, they both knew that if they fought for real it would come to a unquenchable fire erupting in the heart of their each and every city, on both sides, in the cities of everyone, everywhere, until the achievements of civilization and civilization itself were scoured clean, and humans everywhere would die in droves, leaving very few survivors. Not very appealing. But they massed their armies, they marched on parade, NATO trained their warheads on the Fulda Gap, mines were lain that are still only being found today, lines were drawn, the planners sat in their bunkers designed to withstand any bomb, the anxious riflemen and tankers wondered if today would be the day that they would be flown in to meet their pre-prepared equipment in West Germany, and people everywhere were scared for their lives. In the end, it never happened. Nuclear war was averted, the lines were drawn but never used, and the Soviet Army was told to sit still in their barracks as the USSR fell apart around them.
If you say that all of the history books were just media farces, then I am genuinely concerned for your mental health. If you wonder why the Cold War never happened, it's because the weapons were TOO STRONG. It was suicidal to even start. That's why America beats up small 3rd world countries every once in a while, to release our Cold War residual anger. The Soviets released it on themselves in the early '90s.
So the cold war was all to real. If you really think that it was all a media farce, you're dumb.
LOL!!!
Maniacal people who invent such weapons are somehow sane enough to avoid their use...
Grimm's fairy tales INDEED!!!
It truly is the same song and dance as those stories of haunted houses and the boogeyman in the woods...
Tales simply made up in order to keep the gullible away from the local moonshiners or other such criminal enterprise...
You fall for it...hook, line, and sinker...
You can believe what you want.
-
ideological differences.
You could have simply posted this...
And those ideological differences did boil down, have boiled down, and will boil down, to one thing and one thing only...
Which brand of totalitarian rule will be exercised in order to extract the most amount of wealth from the people.
All the rest is simply the surrounding drama.
Yeah, it is news and heartbreaking for those involved at the time, but one does not need to partake.
One can simply raise the middle finger.
First: Territory. The Soviets wanted AS MUCH land as possible as a buffer between them and a resurgent West that may invade them again. They also wanted the industrial heartland of Germany, the Ruhr, which happened to be in the occupation zone of the Western Allies.
The second was the fact that territory DIRECTLY controlled by the U.S., Britain, and France (One side in the cold war), the occupation zone of western Germany, DIRECTLY TOUCHED the territory DIRECTLY controlled by the USSR, the other side of the Cold War. This will create friction, especially when military units are massed in both due to those areas being the final areas pushed to by those massed armies during the endgame of World War 2, and the fact that the occupation governments were militarily based due to the fact that NOBODY trusted Germany after the SECOND time they had tried to take over Europe.
The final contributor that stirs the pots of these two factors are the ESSENTIAL differences in the ideals and ideologies of the two sides. It was democracy and the free market on one side, with authoritative policies and a controlled economy on the other. It was a battle for supremacy of ideals, and even deeper just a competition of who was smarter, stronger, richer, better.
They poked, tussled, sent friends to kill each other, but never truly brought it to a fight, which was averted only due to the sheer power of the weapons that would be used, first the atom bomb and then the hydrogen fusion device. Although they both massed armies of flesh and steel on the borders, and re-constituted their respective Germany, they both knew that if they fought for real it would come to a unquenchable fire erupting in the heart of their each and every city, on both sides, in the cities of everyone, everywhere, until the achievements of civilization and civilization itself were scoured clean, and humans everywhere would die in droves, leaving very few survivors. Not very appealing. But they massed their armies, they marched on parade, NATO trained their warheads on the Fulda Gap, mines were lain that are still only being found today, lines were drawn, the planners sat in their bunkers designed to withstand any bomb, the anxious riflemen and tankers wondered if today would be the day that they would be flown in to meet their pre-prepared equipment in West Germany, and people everywhere were scared for their lives. In the end, it never happened. Nuclear war was averted, the lines were drawn but never used, and the Soviet Army was told to sit still in their barracks as the USSR fell apart around them.
If you say that all of the history books were just media farces, then I am genuinely concerned for your mental health. If you wonder why the Cold War never happened, it's because the weapons were TOO STRONG. It was suicidal to even start. That's why America beats up small 3rd world countries every once in a while, to release our Cold War residual anger. The Soviets released it on themselves in the early '90s.
So the cold war was all to real. If you really think that it was all a media farce, you're dumb.
LOL!!!
Maniacal people who invent such weapons are somehow sane enough to avoid their use...
Grimm's fairy tales INDEED!!!
It truly is the same song and dance as those stories of haunted houses and the boogeyman in the woods...
Tales simply made up in order to keep the gullible away from the local moonshiners or other such criminal enterprise...
You fall for it...hook, line, and sinker...
You can believe what you want.
How in the world does the cold war keep people away from the local moonshiner? Besides that, the people who invented them were intending to use them on Hitler and Japan. They just kind of proliferated. It's not song and dance, many died, shots were fired, and a country collapsed. People starved, and the world was pretty shit actually
-
How in the world does the cold war keep people away from the local moonshiner?
Holy cow dude...
What are you failing to comprehend?
Tales of the boogeyman and haunted houses and other such scary shit are utilized to keep people away or otherwise occupied while criminal enterprise is being conducted (i.e., GOVERNMENT)
Besides that, the people who invented them were intending to use them on Hitler and Japan.
Oh yeah...just one time...rrriiiggghhhttt...
LMAO!!!
They just kind of proliferated.
No, they have not...
It's not song and dance, many died, shots were fired, and a country collapsed. People starved, and the world was pretty shit actually
You are right...
Many people buy into this bullshit and they all become one gigantic asshole, perfectly willing to inflict their collective assholeishness on every one else...
You know, God Save the King and all that bullshit...
-
How in the world does the cold war keep people away from the local moonshiner?
Holy cow dude...
What are you failing to comprehend?
Tales of the boogeyman and haunted houses and other such scary shit are utilized to keep people away or otherwise occupied while criminal enterprise is being conducted (i.e., GOVERNMENT)
Besides that, the people who invented them were intending to use them on Hitler and Japan.
Oh yeah...just one time...rrriiiggghhhttt...
LMAO!!!
They just kind of proliferated.
No, they have not...
It's not song and dance, many died, shots were fired, and a country collapsed. People starved, and the world was pretty shit actually
You are right...
Many people buy into this bullshit and they all become one gigantic asshole, perfectly willing to inflict their collective assholeishness on every one else...
You know, God Save the King and all that bullshit...
You know that the Allies were prepared to turn Germany and Japan into nuclear wastelands if they didn't surrender, right? It wasn't a "Just One" kind of thing. There is no "bogeyman" about the cold war. You are actually suggesting a conspiracy that rewrote all of history for the entire world AND rewrote the memories of, I don't know, Vietnam veterans, Korea veterans, American armored divisions stationed in West Germany, and every person on both sides of the iron curtain.
-
You know that the Allies were prepared to turn Germany and Japan into nuclear wastelands if they didn't surrender, right? It wasn't a "Just One" kind of thing.
No, they were not. You know the firebombings of Tokyo and the heavy losses sustained to the Japanese Naval Fleet had effectively ended the conflict with Japan and the so-called Axis in Europe had effectively collapsed in 1944, primarily due to massive bombings of factories throughout Germany. There is no "bogeyman" about the cold war. You are actually suggesting a conspiracy that rewrote all of history for the entire world AND rewrote the memories of, I don't know, Vietnam veterans, Korea veterans, American armored divisions stationed in West Germany, and every person on both sides of the iron curtain.
No, I am suggesting an active conspiracy at that time, including full collaboration on the part of both sides, designed to generate maximum profiteering and subjugation of the world's populace.
You actually think the elite are going to engage in a war against each other?
They will not.
The sots will though...
The elites are not manning a machine gun nest...
Jesus man...
Just stop already.
-
You know that the Allies were prepared to turn Germany and Japan into nuclear wastelands if they didn't surrender, right? It wasn't a "Just One" kind of thing.
No, they were not. You know the firebombings of Tokyo and the heavy losses sustained to the Japanese Naval Fleet had effectively ended the conflict with Japan and the so-called Axis in Europe had effectively collapsed in 1944, primarily due to massive bombings of factories throughout Germany. There is no "bogeyman" about the cold war. You are actually suggesting a conspiracy that rewrote all of history for the entire world AND rewrote the memories of, I don't know, Vietnam veterans, Korea veterans, American armored divisions stationed in West Germany, and every person on both sides of the iron curtain.
No, I am suggesting an active conspiracy at that time, including full collaboration on the part of both sides, designed to generate maximum profiteering and subjugation of the world's populace.
You actually think the elite are going to engage in a war against each other?
They will not.
The sots will though...
The elites are not manning a machine gun nest...
Jesus man...
Just stop already.
> John F Kennedy was a heroic PT boat commander in the pacific
>George H Bush was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in the Navy.
>Theodore Roosevelt's son, Theodore Roosevelt Jr, was on Utah Beach during D-Day
Many of these "elite" are simply too old to serve in the military
And the very idea that the Soviet Union and the United States were in a profiteering conspiracy in the cold war is the most preposterous statement I have EVER heard.
You haven't provided any evidence of this conspiracy, either, you just say it happened.
-
> John F Kennedy was a heroic PT boat commander in the pacific
>George H Bush was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in the Navy.
>Theodore Roosevelt's son, Theodore Roosevelt Jr, was on Utah Beach during D-Day
Many of these "elite" are simply too old to serve in the military
And the very idea that the Soviet Union and the United States were in a profiteering conspiracy in the cold war is the most preposterous statement I have EVER heard.
You haven't provided any evidence of this conspiracy, either, you just say it happened.
Yeah, I am sure the peeps you mentioned were in absolute grave danger.
Yeah, I am sure the governments and elites have absolutely lost all their resources and are not making one thin dime from their respective times at the top.
People spend billions on a campaign to assume an office that only pays 500K a year.
Okay.
Take your Aesop's and continue on.
-
> John F Kennedy was a heroic PT boat commander in the pacific
>George H Bush was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in the Navy.
>Theodore Roosevelt's son, Theodore Roosevelt Jr, was on Utah Beach during D-Day
Many of these "elite" are simply too old to serve in the military
And the very idea that the Soviet Union and the United States were in a profiteering conspiracy in the cold war is the most preposterous statement I have EVER heard.
You haven't provided any evidence of this conspiracy, either, you just say it happened.
Yeah, I am sure the peeps you mentioned were in absolute grave danger.
Yeah, I am sure the governments and elites have absolutely lost all their resources and are not making one thin dime from their respective times at the top.
People spend billions on a campaign to assume an office that only pays 500K a year.
Okay.
Take your Aesop's and continue on.
Billions on a campaign? I don't think so.
Actually, Roosevelt Jr. was leading a group from the front on Utah, and JFK got the purple heart for the injuries he sustained in his command. A PT boat is just a motorboat with torpedoes, one of the most dangerous jobs in the WW2 navy.
Anyway, I cannot entertain someone who offers no evidence for their claims and also DENIES THE COLD WAR. If you have evidence, re-open this. If not, shut up.
-
Billions on a campaign? I don't think so.
Actually, Roosevelt Jr. was leading a group from the front on Utah, and JFK got the purple heart for the injuries he sustained in his command. A PT boat is just a motorboat with torpedoes, one of the most dangerous jobs in the WW2 navy.
Anyway, I cannot entertain someone who offers no evidence for their claims and also DENIES THE COLD WAR. If you have evidence, re-open this. If not, shut up.
Okay, millions...tens of millions...
to win an office that pays 500 k a year...
Out of the goodness of their heart...
Again, you simply choose to remain willfully ignorant or obtuse or willfully allegiant to ideas and propaganda.
I cannot help this nor will I choose to try.
You can have your point and I can have mine.
As far as shutting up, you know where you can fly that banner...
In the darkest recesses of the pole stuck up your _ _ _.
-
Billions on a campaign? I don't think so.
Actually, Roosevelt Jr. was leading a group from the front on Utah, and JFK got the purple heart for the injuries he sustained in his command. A PT boat is just a motorboat with torpedoes, one of the most dangerous jobs in the WW2 navy.
Anyway, I cannot entertain someone who offers no evidence for their claims and also DENIES THE COLD WAR. If you have evidence, re-open this. If not, shut up.
Okay, millions...tens of millions...
to win an office that pays 500 k a year...
Out of the goodness of their heart...
Again, you simply choose to remain willfully ignorant or obtuse or willfully allegiant to ideas and propaganda.
I cannot help this nor will I choose to try.
You can have your point and I can have mine.
As far as shutting up, you know where you can fly that banner...
In the darkest recesses of the pole stuck up your _ _ _.
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
-
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
Willing to acknowledge power grabs and the desire for such...
That is certainly a start.
What lengths do some people go to keep or consolidate that power?
-
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
Willing to acknowledge power grabs and the desire for such...
That is certainly a start.
What lengths do some people go to keep or consolidate that power?
They run for re-election.
-
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
Willing to acknowledge power grabs and the desire for such...
That is certainly a start.
What lengths do some people go to keep or consolidate that power?
They run for re-election.
Nothing else, uh?
Like killing opposition?
-
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
Willing to acknowledge power grabs and the desire for such...
That is certainly a start.
What lengths do some people go to keep or consolidate that power?
They run for re-election.
Nothing else, uh?
Like killing opposition?
Give me proof of such and I will believe it. Same with everything. Proof and I'll believe it. I haven't seen proof of the flat earth yet, neither have I seen proof of presidents assassinating their opponents. There's the fact that NO PRESIDENT except FDR, who was a special case anyway, was in office for more than 8 years. Pretty good proof that presidents are willing to step down.
-
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
Willing to acknowledge power grabs and the desire for such...
That is certainly a start.
What lengths do some people go to keep or consolidate that power?
They run for re-election.
Nothing else, uh?
Like killing opposition?
Give me proof of such and I will believe it. Same with everything. Proof and I'll believe it. I haven't seen proof of the flat earth yet, neither have I seen proof of presidents assassinating their opponents. There's the fact that NO PRESIDENT except FDR, who was a special case anyway, was in office for more than 8 years. Pretty good proof that presidents are willing to step down.
Yep, none of the presidents of the US were ever assassinated and certainly the fine folks like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et.al., were all very benevolent persons...
Dude, you need to wake up and smell the coffee...
-
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
Willing to acknowledge power grabs and the desire for such...
That is certainly a start.
What lengths do some people go to keep or consolidate that power?
They run for re-election.
Nothing else, uh?
Like killing opposition?
Give me proof of such and I will believe it. Same with everything. Proof and I'll believe it. I haven't seen proof of the flat earth yet, neither have I seen proof of presidents assassinating their opponents. There's the fact that NO PRESIDENT except FDR, who was a special case anyway, was in office for more than 8 years. Pretty good proof that presidents are willing to step down.
Yep, none of the presidents of the US were ever assassinated and certainly the fine folks like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et.al., were all very benevolent persons...
Dude, you need to wake up and smell the coffee...
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.
-
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
Willing to acknowledge power grabs and the desire for such...
That is certainly a start.
What lengths do some people go to keep or consolidate that power?
They run for re-election.
Nothing else, uh?
Like killing opposition?
Give me proof of such and I will believe it. Same with everything. Proof and I'll believe it. I haven't seen proof of the flat earth yet, neither have I seen proof of presidents assassinating their opponents. There's the fact that NO PRESIDENT except FDR, who was a special case anyway, was in office for more than 8 years. Pretty good proof that presidents are willing to step down.
Yep, none of the presidents of the US were ever assassinated and certainly the fine folks like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et.al., were all very benevolent persons...
Dude, you need to wake up and smell the coffee...
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.
He even buys into American Exceptionalism... lol
-
You still haven't given me a single statistic other than one you pulled out of your ass. Guess what: People like power. There's more to life than money, in case you didn't know.
Willing to acknowledge power grabs and the desire for such...
That is certainly a start.
What lengths do some people go to keep or consolidate that power?
They run for re-election.
Nothing else, uh?
Like killing opposition?
Give me proof of such and I will believe it. Same with everything. Proof and I'll believe it. I haven't seen proof of the flat earth yet, neither have I seen proof of presidents assassinating their opponents. There's the fact that NO PRESIDENT except FDR, who was a special case anyway, was in office for more than 8 years. Pretty good proof that presidents are willing to step down.
Yep, none of the presidents of the US were ever assassinated and certainly the fine folks like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et.al., were all very benevolent persons...
Dude, you need to wake up and smell the coffee...
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.
He even buys into American Exceptionalism... lol
I don't "buy into it", I read history books. We are exceptional, in many ways. If you give me proof of a conspiracy, I will believe it.
-
So... you read the American History book, written by the American company, in an American public school. Way to cover all your bases when trying to get an accurate view of the world.
I don't need to give you proof of any particular conspiracy, if you're interested everything you want to know is a google search away. What do you have to lose? If you know 9/11 was actually a terrorist attack by muslims that hate our "freedoms," then it shouldn't bother you to watch a few videos, and read a few articles. What's the worse that can happen?
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.