0
realeagle 0 points ago +1 / -1

You asked a specific question about bonds, and now you are ranting about oligarchs ruling us. Bill Gates might face a military tribunal for his crimes, but that is unrelated to the question you asked.

1
realeagle 1 point ago +2 / -1

If you think that the white hats have a goal of abolishing capitalism in their process, you are mistaken.

4
realeagle 4 points ago +5 / -1

US will declare bankruptcy and it will all be gone. In exchange for destroying the dollar and all savings, all debts private and public will be abolished via NASARA theory. Everyone starts again fresh with any physical assets they have.

1
realeagle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Okay. What if God saw the oppression that was happening in America before the American Revolution and just disappeared the British from America and sent them back to their country.

Without the struggle, the Constitution isn't made. America does not become an example for other countries to the point that its Constitution is copied and adopted by many countries. There is no everlasting national pride in America. The US States, in fact, are less inclined to join as one and instead become their own smaller countries like many wanted at the time.

A united America never focuses on building its military based on learned lessons and becomes a group of shithole countries that never becomes a world power, never receives major international investment as a 'safe' (military superior) country, and the other countries take hundreds of more years to re-discover the principles of the American Constitution.

In Star Trek one of the philosophies is not to meddle with other civilizations or meddle with time travel, or else it can cause unintended consequences. If you do a 'good' thing and things go bad you are basically responsible for all of it.

8
realeagle 8 points ago +8 / -0

You can love your child without controlling their life like a dictator.

What's the point of bringing a life into the world to live as an individual if you are just going to control everything?

2
realeagle 2 points ago +2 / -0

The people Trump appointed for many positions had to be confirmed by Congress. He was limited in his choices.

0
realeagle 0 points ago +1 / -1

You are addressing the 1850's model. This does nothing to address the fact that the most modern Flat Earth model is the Bi-Polar model here - https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

Also, the video you provided is only a partial rotation and does not even debunk the Monopole explanation here - https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Celestial_Rotation#Glass_Dome_Example

-2
realeagle -2 points ago +1 / -3

Yes. The fundamental concept of a star which has a planet which has a moon cannot exist. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

1
realeagle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh, they are offended by it. Even gays are offended by trannies and think abortion is gross. They just forgive and pardon it under the athiestic philosophy of "acceptance".

To its credit this is somewhat similar to the Christian philosophy of forgiveness. But Christianity teaches to forgive but not pardon.

1
realeagle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Actually in the video Scott said he would finish the wall and would fix up policies to pressure them out, but would not implement a mass door-to-door deportation scheme. I thought it was a fair answer.

2
realeagle 2 points ago +2 / -0

Towards the end of the video he gives his answer. He wouldn't implement a mass door-to-door deportation scheme but would finish the wall and fix policies to pressure them out. I thought it was a fair answer.

1
realeagle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why are you referencing a fictional show as evidence for secret military technology?

2
realeagle 2 points ago +2 / -0

You should think about your theory a little more. One father and son was replaced on the trip with another because the undersea voyage and accident happened on Father's Day.

3
realeagle 3 points ago +3 / -0

Because the professional athlete is s cultural hero that we are told to admire and aspire to be. If they were paid a normal salary they would be unremarkable and undistinguished. In most sports it's hard for normal people to judge physical talent on their own.

1
realeagle 1 point ago +1 / -0

They have been liberal since around 2006.

The Wall Street Journal article was from 1989 though. The Tiananmen Square incident happened in 1989.

The Wall Street Journal was a conservative newspaper in 1989, by your own admission above. Your mistake here proves that you have no idea what you are talking about and are making up shit to reinforce your predetermined narrative.

1
realeagle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, you're hopeless. One of those sources isn't even a liberal paper. They are also claiming two different narratives, because they no longer mention the protestor violence and imply that it was a naked act of aggression. Both stories can't both be true, but somehow you "know" which one is true, despite not being there. This is not intellectual honesty or a search for truth.

1
realeagle 1 point ago +1 / -0

The media is giving two different stories, one story in which the protestors were violent and one where they were not. You get your information from the media, choosing to believe one version over another, choosing to believe what they are lying about. This is intellectual dishonesty to continue to hold onto one story because it aligns with your views in the face of contradicting narratives.

1
realeagle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, this sounds a little worse than teasing:

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1533187305271443458

The Wall Street Journal admitted in 1989 that "radicalized protesters" in Tiananmen were "armed with guns and vehicles commandeered in clashes with the military"

"Dozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead"

Insurgents hanged soldiers' corpses

There is a screenshot of the Wallstreet Journal article in the link.

The Washington Post also reported on the protestor violence:

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1533185862825132032

Even the Washington Post admitted at the time that US-backed "demonstrators did attack troops who did not respond"

Video shows insurgents stoning troops, beating them, firebombing trucks and buses, taking soldiers' rifles

0
realeagle 0 points ago +1 / -1

Did I say that no one died? I said that it is stupid to believe that a military parade would randomly decide to shoot people for no reason.

The media and educational system portrays this as a naked act of aggression by a military parade, like they portray Hitler's actions as naked acts of aggression. You are sadly deluded if you think this is what happened and there isn't more to this.

-1
realeagle -1 points ago +1 / -2

If you were awake you would know not to believe what the liberal media amd education system tells you. Shame on you for believing stupid shit like a military parade deciding to shoot people for no reason.

-9
realeagle -9 points ago +1 / -10

imagine thinking that a military parade decided to shoot people out of the blue for no reason and that violent radicalists are heros

0
realeagle 0 points ago +2 / -2

Most groups feel they are justified in their actions of using force, and are "responding". By your definitions there they must all be rightwing.

BLM riots were justified with the claim that society is against them and they are actively being oppressed, which might be true that society oppresses druggies and store thieves, perhaps with disproportional punishments to what was done (ie. years imprisonment for a reoffending drug charge or petty theft charge). They have a justification that they are being legitimately attacked and are responding. Those must be rightwing heroes according to your definition.

Obviously BLM riots are not "rightwing" and you are incorrect. Even if you are justified and are responding to an attack, you are not right wing. The Right chiefly refers a specific ideology, not the things you are making up.

0
realeagle 0 points ago +2 / -2

What you are proposing prevents me from looking at the Crusades as a cool thing that the religious right needs to do again, because it involved disrespectful "force" which you say is "leftist".

You are wrong, of course. Sometimes force is necessary. The founding fathers used force, Hitler used force, and the Crusades used force. It has nothing to do with "forced destruction" being an inherent property of leftism. This is your personal loony invention.

view more: Next ›