If you're going to hypothesis a small single user weather control device, why not also include a battery powered rail gun with backup 16MW laser, just to make it really dangerous?
I never said single user. People use flimsy responses to speculation that anything odd has to be a large scale operation and then use that has why is couldn't happen because something would leak. Secrets are kept and things are have major influence does not always need to be large. |
|
|
|
I am not saying their is or is not a weather machine. But, why would you think automatically other governments would know it?
Please always keep in mind that the US government is not the only government in the entire world, that the US government has many enemies, and that those enemies have a lot of spies and espionage programs around US (including foreign satellites and monitoring outposts).
Wow, so you equate that just because governments have spies, surveillance & satellites that something this damning would leak. If something is meant to be secret, it will be, the government only plays that it is incompetent. I agree with Rassah on this. The government is made up of human beings, just like us. Sure, there are some hidden secrets, but large-scale conspiracy theories rarely hold water for long, because with too many human beings involved, one of them is liable to make a mistake, crack, or otherwise inadvertently (or advertently) reveal the secret. Who is to say a weather machine would need a large scale operation? It could be a small device that only needs a relatively small group of people to operate it. If it was a small device, why is it that no one else could figure out how to make one? We have seen technology get smaller and smaller and it seems like the smaller it is, the harder it is to produce. Also it would not necessarily be a machine but rather a technique or some conjunction. As to your question, who knows? That is a very open-ended question. |
|
|
|
|
Nice summation of the history of the bonds.
|
|
|
|
I am not saying their is or is not a weather machine. But, why would you think automatically other governments would know it?
Please always keep in mind that the US government is not the only government in the entire world, that the US government has many enemies, and that those enemies have a lot of spies and espionage programs around US (including foreign satellites and monitoring outposts).
Wow, so you equate that just because governments have spies, surveillance & satellites that something this damning would leak. If something is meant to be secret, it will be, the government only plays that it is incompetent. I agree with Rassah on this. The government is made up of human beings, just like us. Sure, there are some hidden secrets, but large-scale conspiracy theories rarely hold water for long, because with too many human beings involved, one of them is liable to make a mistake, crack, or otherwise inadvertently (or advertently) reveal the secret. Who is to say a weather machine would need a large scale operation? It could be a small device that only needs a relatively small group of people to operate it. |
|
|
|
There seems to be a rash of mistaken reports lately. Sandy Hook shooter was reported to have used two handguns only. Then they found an M4 in his truck. Then it wasn't in his truck at all, but used exclusively in the shooting.
Don't forget the alleged 2nd shooter found in camo and was quoted saying "I had nothing to do with it". That has now been dismissed as not material. Also, initial reports of the mother being a teacher, that was false. |
|
|
|
If it was murder, the bastards need to rot in hell.
If? Care to explain how (and why) one would shoot ones self in the back of the head? The only question is if it was politically motivated. It seems the sheriff is disputing some of the early reports. He may not have been tied up. I bet they are. If you take the tied up report away then you can all it just a random act of violence or something not so creepy. It was a crime scene and that is a basic fact, either he was tied up or not. People don't usually make mistakes on basic facts like, was the guy tied up or not. |
|
|
|
Without even having seen the video..... try to remember what the real issues are, BitWare. You're getting sidetracked.
it was a video showing alex jones intruding on an already occuring rally of like-minded individuals, but he crashed it, bull horning over the patriotic constitution loving protesters. Then when asked to stop and participate he verbally attacks them. All so he had negative footage to show him bull horning and yelling. he ruined the whole thing, then portrayed it on his show as a fight and attacks against infowars... a type of false flag one might say. I will try to find another copy somewhere to post a link to. Give the whole context, he was under the impression they were a fake grass roots group with some odd connections. |
|
|
|
If it was murder, the bastards need to rot in hell.
If? Care to explain how (and why) one would shoot ones self in the back of the head? The only question is if it was politically motivated. Yes, that is the most important question outside of who did it. The timing is really odd. I never saw any of his videos and watched some last night. In the wake of all these mass shootings, I could see how his attitude could rub someone wrong. I am really starting to think that this was a message of some sort. Gunning someone down is one thing but tying them to a chair and shooting them is a whole other type of act. You know a conversation took place before they did this heinous act. |
|
|
|
Fuck  Is this potential blow back from the gun debate? This really saddens me, I hope he wasn't into any dirty shit. Being tied up and shot is one of the worst ways to go. My heart goes out to his family. |
|
|
|
I am not saying their is or is not a weather machine. But, why would you think automatically other governments would know it?
Please always keep in mind that the US government is not the only government in the entire world, that the US government has many enemies, and that those enemies have a lot of spies and espionage programs around US (including foreign satellites and monitoring outposts).
Wow, so you equate that just because governments have spies, surveillance & satellites that something this damning would leak. If something is meant to be secret, it will be, the government only plays that it is incompetent. |
|
|
|
You're not going to answer me, are you?
I know why, and I understand. Nobody likes admitting that they're a hypocrite.
No, I just feel at the point, putting my time into debating with you. Your view port is currently at a place that is too extreme for my to expend energy on you. You can't seem to see any value in what I am saying and if you knew me in person and the people I hold as company, I am known as very reasonable and someone who puts a lot of thought into what I say. If you want to engage further, you should go into the last couple issues we have discussed and maybe come closer to me from the extreme position you have stuck too. |
|
|
|
Alex Jones did the proper thing. There was going to be no debate ... Piers Morgan has an agenda and it got snuffed out by Alex Jones it was the proper way to go about it.
You are wrong there. They could of calmly went back and forth armed with their messages and facts and the audience could of made a decision to who was more persuasive. Mr. Jones went way overboard to a point where you could not even process the information over his red-meat slogans. I can imagine another way this could of gone. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry my good sir, but I seem to have missed something you consider to be important. Why shouldn't I be willing to sacrifice myself to save others? Is it suicide that bothers you - would it be different if I worked in a hazardous environment or went on a one-way research mission to Mars?
Yes, I have to say someone who would equate the value of their existence into money as someone I have serious issues if they are discussing public policy. If that is your perspective on the value of something I feel is most precious, you may have other ideas that would have a core fundamental assumption that life does have a price and with that, make some choices easier. If you support Social Security and Medicare and the policies surrounding those programs (such as whether to raise the associated taxes or change how much they pay out), then you are supporting equating someone's existence into money. I do not support those specific programs. I would not on the other hand would be okay with letting elderly people die because of the lack of basic essentials either. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry my good sir, but I seem to have missed something you consider to be important. Why shouldn't I be willing to sacrifice myself to save others? Is it suicide that bothers you - would it be different if I worked in a hazardous environment or went on a one-way research mission to Mars?
Yes, I have to say someone who would equate the value of their existence into money as someone I have serious issues if they are discussing public policy. If that is your perspective on the value of something I feel is most precious, you may have other ideas that would have a core fundamental assumption that life does have a price and with that, make some choices easier. What if I take the dollar value out of it? If I'm willing to die to save 100 people, does that also invalidate my opinion? I apologize if this comes across as an ad hominem, but do you drive to work? To me that seems like much the same thing, but to a lesser extent; you're accepting several micromorts in exchange for money. That changes everything. In a moment of crisis, I too would sacrifice myself for 100 people. I would not on the other hand, go to be slaughter in exchange for 100 people in a per-planned act. I actually am fortunately close enough to my work where that I do not need to drive. Why? |
|
|
|
So, you're saying that if the US government had a hurricane machine, other governments would pick a fight with them?
No, I'm saying that if the US government had a hurricane machine, other countries would know it, and if US used it against its own citizens, other countries would have huge front-page headlines about how awful the US government is, and huw much better Russia/China/Iran/France/Whatever is. I am not saying their is or is not a weather machine. But, why would you think automatically other governments would know it? |
|
|
|
I'm sorry my good sir, but I seem to have missed something you consider to be important. Why shouldn't I be willing to sacrifice myself to save others? Is it suicide that bothers you - would it be different if I worked in a hazardous environment or went on a one-way research mission to Mars?
Yes, I have to say someone who would equate the value of their existence into money as someone I have serious issues if they are discussing public policy. If that is your perspective on the value of something I feel is most precious, you may have other ideas that would have a core fundamental assumption that life does have a price and with that, make some choices easier. Sidenote: My statement contains no underlining political comments about a " certain" wedge issue that is used in politics in America. After reading my comments, I didn't want you to think I was even hinting at that. |
|
|
|
What is the monetary dollar value of your life? Mine is priceless and fuck you to anyone who wants to tell me otherwise.
As of this moment, I'd estimate about $10 million USD. That is to say, if my death would leave that much to my loved ones and favorite charities, their sadness would be outweighed by hundreds (maybe thousands) of lives saved. My wife would never work or go without health care again. There are things more important than me. Do you drive to work? Do you sometimes go a long time without exercise, enough sleep, or a checkup with the doctor? So if someone offered you 10 million, you'd do it? Off yourself, that is? I'd like to say yes, but to be honest I'd think long and hard about that number if I got a serious offer. You're a discredited idiot to even entertain the offer. How can we even seriously evaluate your opinion if you would even consider suicide for money. |
|
|
|
There's no such thing as a 100% safe anything, particularly nuclear bombs. However, not allowing anyone but large governments access seems unfair and dangerous. So I think keeping them from either no one or everyone is unreasonable, and a moderate solution is needed.
One good idea I saw before was to simply require full liability insurance for weapons. If your nuke goes off for whatever reason and kills innocents, you are required to pay restitution to their next of kin. That way we can buy mining nukes, but crazy idiots can't just collect them willy nilly. This policy would nicely scale down too, providing arms more cheaply to people who have taken a gun safety course. Regulations might reduce the risk of accident, but WHEN one happens without restitution it's still unjust.
This libility insurance requirement would have to go all the way down the supply chain as well. I'd imagine this could work in the context of either a state or anarchy. Thoughts?
What is the monetary dollar value of your life? Mine is priceless and fuck you to anyone who wants to tell me otherwise. |
|
|
|
Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?
And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?
And who runs those companies?
If this is how you are going to use logic then we are not actually debating anything of substance and if you are truly support nuclear weapons in the hands of the private citizens then you are mentally unstable... My point is that you were advocating the same thing: Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.
Mining companies are comprised of, and run by, private citizens. Or does the collectivization turn them into something else? A company heavily regulated for their access to use nuclear weapons is far and away a different thing than a private citizen. You know that so I don't understand why you even bringing this point up? So your contention is that the collectivization does turn a group of private citizens into something else entirely, simply by one of those citizens signing some papers. Do companies never have disgruntled employees? Do these employees never have access to sensitive materials? What additional protection do you see from allowing a collected group of citizens to own and use nukes, as opposed to single citizens? What about small businesses, just a single person?
PRIVATE CITIZENS SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS [Full Stop] As for this disgruntled employee. Obviously you have not researched into our current safeguard, I'll tell you how we stop that. They get their nuke into space to the asteroid it it only gets armed once it is very close to its target, armed not by the company and control of the nuke would be in the government that regulates this activity. They would of also submitted a plan on the project and where impact was needed so there would be some sudden change at the last second by the government that would jeopardize their investments and capital. |
|
|
|
Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?
And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?
And who runs those companies?
If this is how you are going to use logic then we are not actually debating anything of substance and if you are truly support nuclear weapons in the hands of the private citizens then you are mentally unstable... My point is that you were advocating the same thing: Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.
Mining companies are comprised of, and run by, private citizens. Or does the collectivization turn them into something else? A company heavily regulated for their access to use nuclear weapons is far and away a different thing than a private citizen. You know that so I don't understand why you even bringing this point up? I have a guess and I stated it above. You already pulled that little stunt with the waving a gun in public in which you either lied or were just purposely being ignorant to the grammar used. I am seriously starting to doubt your intellectual honesty. I am seeing something of quite a contrast from reading many of your statements and positions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
