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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.