Total posts: 2,182
Posted in:
Show me non-politicized sources.
Created:
Posted in:
An example of what genius?
Literally this:
He added 8 trillion to the National debt in just 4 years. 1 million Americans died of Covid-19 when it could have been just 2-300,000 if he had responded correctlyHe was impeached twice. Once for shaking down the President of Ukraine and once for inciting an insurrection against our own government. He had the highest turnover of personnel in history. The White House was a shit show. People resigned from working for him in extremely high numbers
Created:
Posted in:
You have yet to show me any sources.
Created:
Posted in:
Wait, do you not believe these facts? Are you a fact free conservative?
GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE. YOU ARE DODGING THE QUESTION.
Created:
Posted in:
He added 8 trillion to the National debt in just 4 years. 1 million Americans died of Covid-19 when it could have been just 2-300,000 if he had responded correctlyHe was impeached twice. Once for shaking down the President of Ukraine and once for inciting an insurrection against our own government. He had the highest turnover of personnel in history. The White House was a shit show. People resigned from working for him in extremely high numbers
Ok I want you to give me an example of any of this from a nonpolitical article or website. Fun fact: it's their but not on the highly politicized articles the media is trying to show you.
Created:
What is this evidence for exactly? It is a fact that virtually all future technologies are dominated by China, in research, development & production: from EVs, to Battery Tech, Solar Tech, Drone Tech, AI, 5G, Blockchain, Quantum Computing, Hypersonic engines, Long range drones, Industrial Integration, Prosumer supply chain, integrated Nuclear Tech, Online payment... etc. This is beside the fact that China also dominates virtually all current industrial sectors, including military sectors. In fact, 6 of the top 12 aerospace companies in the world are in China (5 in the US), including the first 2... It matters not if the US dominates today in old tech, all that will be irrelevant in the future. Also, China dominates half the Construction & Transportation sectors in the world, key sectors in military capacity. It's just that China's military spending to GDP today is a quarter of that of the US. For instance, China manufactures about half cargo ships in the world (about 2000 a year), if they need to they could as easily turn those into military ships (which is equivalent to 20 times US military ships a year).
I still have yet to hear any quote from any specific article or any evidence from your side.
EVs, to Battery Tech, Solar Tech,
This is irrelevant.
Drone Tech
Yea but not in military drones.
AI, 5G, Blockchain, Quantum Computing, Hypersonic engines, Long range drones, Industrial Integration, Prosumer supply chain, integrated Nuclear Tech, Online payment... etc.
These are all things that haven't even been fully developed yet, and we are doing the same, and at the same time growing our arsenal. China is too busy working on future technology, that they can't even focus on actual military power at the progression that we can. And yes, we don't produce as much "new" tech as they do, but we still do, all the while we still can focus on our military strength.
- I'd rather you keep your delusions.
Well, if you're the one who has no evidence, and is making far outlandish claims, and I am the one who has evidence, and is making factual claims that you can only add to and not argue against, then I would assume that you are the delusional one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trust me, the only thing trump has done is boost our economy and secure our border. Biden undid those things.
Yes, Trump has made some rude remarks, but not just to Hispanic people, but to white people, black people, Asian people etc.
And not to those races as a community, but to specific people who were that race.
Trump is not the nicest person in the world, but he was a pretty good dang president.
Everyone was blinded by the media saying that he was being "Mean" and "Racist", but they didn't post the things like him giving us the best economy we've had in 60 years and putting up more security against people at the border.
And if immigrants really wanted to get into the USA, then there's a legal way to do it. He was protecting the US from illegal immigrants, who were basically getting free money from the US. And hate to break it to you, but all illegal immigrants are illegal, because it's in the name illegal immigrant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You wish. If Biden were a white supremacist, then he would have the support of the racists the way Trump does.
First of all, give me one example of a racist law or stance that Trump supported.
Biden on the other hand:
Created:
-->
@Yassine
If there was evidence backing, you up then yes, I could find it, but I can't because it's not there.
If you know of some that I don't then show me
Created:
- I am sure you are fully capable of finding it on your own.
Thats exactly what Best. Korea said when he had none.
Created:
My evidence:
Created:
-->
@Yassine
- This is fantasy. No truth to it whatsoever. China produces 7 times the research in AI & 4 times the research in Aerospace than the US, & the gap widens drastically every year. It's not even a competition. China also boasts 3 times the industrial production of the US. The US innovation in AI & Aerospace today is more in the realm of countries like Turkey. In fact, Turkey surpasses the US in many key aspects of Drone Tech (which is a merge of AI & Aerospace technologies), such as long range drones, unmanned military integration, drone carriers, unmanned fighters...etc. This might come as a surprise to you, but the size of the industrial sector in the US today is about the same that in the Middle East (despite all the conflicts going on there), except the latter is growing at a greater rate. You people still live in post-WWII era mindset, back when the US was actually king.
Evidence?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Since you clearly confirmed that children are property, here is the question: Who should be able to make decisions related to child's body? Society? Government? You? Scientists? Parents? Who gets the final say?
This is a very good question. I believe that parents should make decisions related to the child's body, as long as it stays within legal standards. If just the parents made those decisions, then the parents could decide to do morally wrong things to the kid. Thats why it should be shared with the law, and the parents. The parents should be able to make decisions as far as, what treatments to do when they get sick, what schools they go to, where and when they go places, etc. The law should be in control of the extent of the parents making those decisions, for example: Life altering decisions, should not be made by the parent unless the child is already in a life-or-death situation. Again, I bring up social services to make sure kids aren't being mistreated. Of course, it won't catch all the cases, but it's better than having no prevention at all.
"I'm arguing that there are still a lot of people with kids' best interests at mind." And you assume you are one of them.
Yes, I do care about kids. I do not assume I know.
So should people have freedom not to act in kid's best interest?
Yes, they should. I personally don't agree with it, but just because you don't agree with other adults' decision of not caring about kids, doesn't mean you should force them to care about kids. Thats them as a person. You can't force that change. Now of course that doesn't go for all decision adults make.
You claim that you cant be happy without junk food and cars.
This is a false statement, I said that society will not be comfortable without rights, not me as a person will not be comfortable without junk food or cars. Again, it's not right for society to have these greedy feelings, but you can't make changes on those types of rights without having major backlash.
Are you willing to sacrifice your happiness for kid's best interests?
Yes.
How much harm is prevented by spanking? Will spanking make children less violent?
I'm not saying spanking is the only discipline you should use to discipline your children, but it is one of the effective ways of doing it. I believe that you should spank your children at a certain age, so it teaches them to listen, not get caught, and be fearful of their parents. But as they get older, you should approach them more differently, like time out, and taking away their privileges, and teaching them what's wrong.
"Explain to kids what you expect of them before you punish them for a behavior. The first time your 3-year-old uses crayons to decorate the living room wall, discuss why that's not allowed and what will happen if your child does it again (for instance, your child will have to help clean the wall and will not be able to use the crayons for the rest of the day). If the wall gets decorated again a few days later, issue a reminder that crayons are for paper only and then enforce the consequences."
This is one of the examples of a way to punish your child without spanking, but spanking is still effective.
"Junk food isn't harmful" So why do people get cavities?
Don't cut off pieces of my quote to make a point read the whole thing next time.
You concede that human nature is something shared by all humans.
Yes......given that it's called human nature I would assume it is shared by all humans.
you will have the answer to who can decide if they can transition or not.
I believe that children should not be allowed to transition at all, because though adults are smarter than them, there are some adults, especially now a days, that will do anything to kids just to push their own political agenda. I don't believe that kids should be able to make any life altering decisions like that and no one should be allowed to make those life altering decisions for them except for parents, and only when it is a life-or-death situation. Otherwise, they will have to wait until they are 18 years of age to make whatever decisions they want.
Created:
Can you or can you not explain what best interests are?
You concede that your society doesnt have kid's best interests in mind.
Yes, no society as a whole has kid's best interests at mind, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there are still a lot of people with kids' best interests at mind.
Do you want freedom or best interests? And no, you cant have both, as confirmed by your own sentence.
Yes, you can have both. Thats stupid to say you can't. Interests aren't something that people always act on, it's something that people want. So, if there is freedom, people can't choose what they want to do?
Just one line ago, you were justifying things that arent in kid's best interest.
No, I wasn't quote it then.
You concede that children are property.
In a way children are property; they are in the care of their parents until they are 18. Now not property as in slaves, but property as in how the specific parents treat them. I will say there are a lot of parents who treat their kids like crap, but that's why we have social services.
So now we have moved from "best interests" to "loving"
You are taking pieces from different parts of the argument and connecting them in ways that they don't connect. You can't have someone's best interest unless you love them to an extent. Otherwise, they wouldn't care.
You defined best as something that improves life? But you already admitted that you dont want to improve life by banning junk food and cars, so you have some of your version of "improving" that has nothing to do with best intetests.
Well, why would you want to ban those things, it's a complicated thing. Yes, you want the best for your kids and everyone else, but again if you want everyone to be happy, you have to have some freedoms to an extent. This is why parents tell their kids to eat their vegetables, look both ways before crossing the street, and to stay away from drugs. Those things have to exist to keep society (adults who understand what they are doing) happy. But that doesn't mean you can't help your kids to learn.
At start, you conceded that society hurts kids.Now you switch story again and say that society has best interests in mind.
Again, I said society as a whole doesn't have kid's best interests, but loving parents do, and there are a lot of those.
Do you approve the corporal punishment? Just answer, simple yes or no. If yes, then answer this: Does corporal punishment involve painful involuntary contact on someone's body?
I do to an extent. Spanking for instance can cause pain to the child, but it teaches them. It doesn't hurt the child to a point where they need medical attention, it only hurts them for a second. I personally like the Idea of spanking the child, and after telling them why they did it, and that they still love them. Thats what my parents did to me, and it worked out pretty well. Now if you're talking about torture, then I completely disagree with that. And if you say spanking a child is torture, then that is just plain stupid.
Since you conceded that children are property, why do you oppose to how people treat their property?
This has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. And has nothing to do with the argument.
You are contradicting yourself. First you conceded that most people dont care about kids, then you changed your mind and said that most people do care, now you claim again that most people dont care about kids.
Yes, I did say that most people don't care about kids, but a lot of people do. Now if I were to say that no one cares about kids, then say a lot of people do, then that would be a contradiction.
"You need to learn the difference between intentionally hurting someone and unintentionally hurting someone." Lets proceed to your explanation.
Why quote me and then just not reply to it.
Are you conceding that people dont know that junk food is harmful?
Junk food isn't harmful, unless eaten in big quantities for a long time. Yes, is unhealthy but not harmful for just a meal. And some people surprisingly don't, given they were grown up eating only that.
What is human nature? Opinion of majority? What is biological nature? Opinion of majority?
Human Nature: the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans.
Biological Nature: of or connected with biology; of plants and animals. 2. of the nature of living matter.
Now if you want to get into a moral argument, I will happily do so.
I have told you all my answers, and you are throwing up red herrings, and switching up words.
I will say this only one more time.
I believe that children should not be allowed to make life changing decisions, because they are not fully developed, and not fully mature yet. If they were allowed to, it would be morally wrong and their would-be big consequences. Like they say, you give them an edge, they take it all.
I believe that kids should be disciplined, not violently hurt intentionally. I believe they should be intentionally disciplined, but not violently hurt.
Created:
-->
@thett3
That is true to every word.
Created:
Your society hurts children every day. Parents hurt children every day. Cars hurt children every day. Pollution hurts children every day. Meat hurts children every day. Junk food hurts children every day. Porn hurts children every day. Religion hurts children every day.
You need to learn the difference between intentionally hurting someone and unintentionally hurting someone.
Like yea, junk food hurts people, but people don't intentionally feed their kids junk food just to hurt them, usually in fact it's the opposite.
Created:
Where is the evidence? Random sites are evidence?
Not random, actually websites with actual evidence.
Maybe if you looked at them then you would see.
If you're going to say all websites have fake evidence, then you have nothing to base any of your arguments on.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Your society hurts children every day. Parents hurt children every day. Cars hurt children every day. Pollution hurts children every day. Meat hurts children every day. Junk food hurts children every day. Porn hurts children every day. Religion hurts children every day.
Yes, this is true, but not my society, every society does, and yes it does happen. I was not saying that loving your kid goes for all parents, but I was saying that as a good parent, you should love your kids in that way.
If you and your society had kid's best interests in mind, you would ban these things.
If our society banned all these things, then it wouldn't be a free country now would it.
What this proves is that you and your society do not have kid's best interests as your main interests. Society has its own interests that often conflict with child's best interests, proving that almost no one in your society will place greatest importance on kids.
First of all, who are you to say that I don't have kids' best interests as my main interest. You barely know anything about me. Yes, society definitely doesn't have kids' best interest at heart. What are you trying to prove by saying that? Are you trying to say that since society as a whole doesn't put kids first, means that no one puts kids first?
Since you cannot guarantee that you have kid's best interests in mind when taking away their choice, it follows that you base your viewpoint on an assumption.
Again, you can't take away a kid's choice, when they don't have it in the first place. And they shouldn't give that they are kids. This doesn't mean you should treat your kids as slaves taking away choices from them, but you as an adult are scientifically more mature, and if we are assuming that you love your kids, which a lot of family's do, then you will do anything in your power to help them and teach them to grow up the best life they can.
You cant even explain what best interests are, because everyone has different version of best interests.
This isn't even an argument because you are trying to get me to specify what best interests are. There are different best interests that families have, but I think we can all agree that loving families are trying to improve their kids' lives to a better extent from their own lives. Now is that so bad. I'm not talking about interests like what you're interested in. I'm talking about best interests as in doing things that can better any child's life not a specific one.
You didnt explain which individual in your society will place greatest importance on kid's interests.
Ok and?
How do you know who has kid's best interests in mind?
Because given not people, but most people want society to progress, and you can't do that unless you raise your kids right, put their best interests at heart.
The fact that you assume how you need to use violence to prevent a kid from cutting off his own arm shows that your thinking is limited to threats and violence.
When did I ever say we need to use violence. I said discipline, two different things.
Violence: "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
Discipline: "the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience."
The system of individuals owning their bodies works. Why? If others cant use my body without my will, then I have something in this world that is mine.
YES. I totally agree with this statement. But not when it comes to kids, who DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN BODYS YET.
If a person has to be a property for his whole life, then a person has nothing. And your system, by making everyone under 18 a property, condemns everyone who lives less than 18 years to be a property their entire life.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth that I hadn't even said. You are using words, that are completely different from what I'm saying. Get a better vocabulary.
You are taking the fact of a lot of people don't care about kids, and turning it into, no one cares about kids, and you just want to hurt kids. If you want to actually win a debate, then I suggest listening to other arguments, before assuming.
Created:
-->
@Athias
First, how is any of this "scientific"?
"During adolescence, brains undergo continued growth, and different sections of the brain develop at different rates. The emotional centers of the brain, towards the middle and back, develop first. Maybe you’ve heard of the amygdala or hippocampus before — these are the areas of the brain that play a big part in how people feel and react. On the other hand, the front part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, is involved in reasoning and weighing decisions. Adolescents’ emotional centers mature before their decision-making centers. In other words, teen brains are programmed to have strongly developed emotional responses even as the part of the brain that interprets and calms those emotions is still actively developing."
Created:
Why do you assume that your arguments are not lies?
Because I have evidence to back up mine.
You have never given me any shred of evidence to back up your claims.
Created:
Aron Ralston is completely justified in amputating his own arm, but if a nine year-old were facing the same circumstances, it would be against humanity, life, nature, and all moral codes for said nine year-old to cut off his or her own arm?
Aron Ralston had to cut off his arm, because he would have died if he hadn't. He didn't just feel like doing that, he had to sacrifice his body part to save something more important, his life. If you're going to use Aron Ralston to argue this, then that's a bad example.
Created:
Of course they are. If your child states to you his or her intentions to cut his or her arm off, and you don't want that child to cut his or her arm off, then whose interest are they?
Of course, your child is allowed to have interests but since you as the parent love your child, you don't want them to hurt themselves, and it is LITERALLY AGAINST HUMAN AND BIOLOGICAL NATURE TO CUT OFF ONE OF YOUR LIMBS JUST BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE IT. So, if your child's interests are to cut off their limbs, then you need to take them into therapy and get them help.
Created:
-->
@Athias
What's the difference? Aren't the consequences the same?
Yes, they are different, because if you have a kid who wants to chop off their limb when they are a child, then they are too scientifically immature to see the consequences, but if they are persistent, then you tell them to wait until they are an adult. By the time that comes around, they will have learned years more experience about the world. If they don't learn, that's on either you the parent, or their ignorance. But there is a huge chance they will just laugh off how stupid they were when they were a child.
Created:
Yes. (And this is your better contention.) Because parents have plenary responsibility, it would only make sense that they have plenary authority. I'm not at all suggesting that parents should be legally responsible for their children. In fact, I've always argued against it.I believe children should be instructed, which can involve punishment as long as it does not involve coercion or violence.
If parents weren't legally responsible for their children, there would be a lot more child abuse than if they weren't your contradicting yourself.
"statistics show that women-only households are more likely to live below the poverty line. In 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that these types of families increased to 28 percent. This leaves children vulnerable to a variety of social hardships throughout their lives.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) notes that 1 in 5 children (more than 40 percent) of children in the U.S. fall into the category of "poor or near-poor." While this includes families with two parents as well, the study shows the disadvantages these children face."
This is just what happens when one parent is gone from the household.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Aron Ralston is completely justified in amputating his own arm, but if a nine year-old were facing the same circumstances, it would be against humanity, life, nature, and all moral codes for said nine year-old to cut off his or her own arm?
Yes, THAT IS MY EXACT POINT.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I would presume virtually everyone has made a decision that they've later regretted; it wouldn't have made it any less their decision to have made. It's a slippery slope: if you're going to argue that how one behave one's body is subject to the discretion of those who have different interests, e.g. parents, custodians, the State, etc., then as my hypothetical above demonstrates, the child's body is the within domain of someone else's whim whether it's to the child's presumed benefit or harm.
This is wrong. This exact thinking is why our society is declining. People are thinking too hard into argument about why it's right for a kid to do what they want with their body, BUT ITS NOT. There is a reason that kids aren't allowed to drink, get tattoos, own guns, own property or businesses, or make medically life changing decisions, because if that was all legal, then most of the kids in the world, who have parents that don't care for or love them will not make it.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Then the parent(s) can do everything within their capacity to persuade the child so long as it does not involve coercion or violence.
Yes, this is exactly what parents can do. This is why we need good parents to RAISE good kids.
Created:
If it was gifted to the child, then its theft.
Legal definition of theft: Theft is the taking of another person's personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. Also referred to as larceny.
Legal definition of property: property. n. anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: "real property," which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and "personal property" (sometimes called "personality"), which is everything else.
The child was gifted this item. It was bought and given by the parent. If you really think it is theft to punish your kids by taking away things you gave them, then I suggest you take it up with the law.
Kids can't and don't legally own anything without legal documentation of the parents saying they do.
Laws and regulations don't even let kids have their parents' inheritance until they are 18 years of age.
I ask you again, "to whom does said kid's arm belong? Who has more priority over how its treated than the one to whom it belongs?
Yes, the arm does belong to the kid, but you don't want to use that argument, because I could say the same about the kid's life. So is it morally right, and does the kid have the right to take his own life.
Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't argue that suicide is morally ok.
And if that's the case, you are applying the same flawed reasoning as YouFound_Lxam.
What flawed reasoning?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I mean I could, but I'm not going to go down little rabbit trails with you just to prove you wrong.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I've already laid them out.
You just don't want to accept them because most of your "arguments" I can't argue against because they are complete lies.
Created:
So, government telling adults what to do is wrong because adults are adults?
If you actually thought about this statement, you would know that this is not circular logic.
Created:
So taking away choices from young people is basic parenting?
Yes, this is exactly my point.
No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.
That is not my argument. My argument is that parenting kids and governing people are very different things.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You have no argument, and you once again lose.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I decide what is real. I decide what exists. I decide what is essential reality. I decide what is an actual state of affairs. I decide what is ideal. I decide what is the case. I decide everything. I am your God. You will worship me.
Oh, also this is you too.
Created:
You want to take away choice from young people because you think you know better, so do you agree that government should be able to take away your choice if government thinks that it knows better than you?
Ok listen, I am saying that there is a difference between a parent telling a kid they can't do something because they know better, and the government telling the people they can't do something because they know better.
One is basic parenting, and the other is adults telling adults what they can and can't do.
The fact that you are trying to connect basic parenting with the government taking over, proves that you are trying to connect the dots, where there is nowhere to connect.
Is the comparison wrong, and why?
Just proved why it's wrong.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Premise 1: I give myself the right to decide. Premise 2: I decide what is true. Premise 3: I decide what is false. Premise 4: I decide what is proof. Premise 5: I decided that I am the God.
Oh, also isn't this you?
If you think you are always right and a god, then why are you even arguing, in fact why are you even on this website?
Created:
Even if satellites could track an ICBM, they are also easily rendered useless by nuclear explosion above the range of missile defense. However, satellites can only track an ICBM while it's using its engines. But when ICBM gains high altitude, it is impossible to shoot it down since missile defense systems have limited range and cannot go as high as ICBM.
You obviously didn't do any research for this given that this statement is completely wrong.
Do you think that if a country has military superiority over you, it will immediately declare nuclear war on you?
Not all countries would, but if China had military superiority over the USA, which it doesn't, then yes, they probably would.
While its true that at close range it makes no difference, at long range it does. So why was US unable to produce ICBM that has greater range than North Korean ICBMs?
Do you really think that if one of the countries that can't even compete with us makes an ICBM that has greater range than us, that we wouldn't make the same thing if not something better.
Yes, but I asked who made the most powerful bomb. That would be USSR and its Tsar bomb.
Soviet Union is gone through...
The only reason that the U.S has even thought about worrying about North Korea, is because their leaders are corrupt and psychotic, and if they gained any amount of power, they would be killing more people than they ever have before.
Created:
Government thinks that you are too immature and uses that thinking to take away your choices from you.
You're comparing the right to vote with adults to parenting with children.
Created:
Also, some young people of today will be members of the government in the future when they are older.
You just proved my point.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Young people under the age of 18 by law don't have a choice when it comes to things like this. They are too immature. This is proven with science.
There is a reason that world leaders and important figure heads are all older adults, because if they were all under 18, then the world would have probably ended by now.
But I do disagree with the government taking away choices from adults who have lived a law-abiding life and want to create a life for themselves in whatever way they choose.
Created:
You seem to have forgotten about comparison of minuteman to North Korean ICBM that has longer range.
Just because it has longer range, doesn't make it more advanced.
Also, China has advantage in hypersonic missiles that can change directions to avoid defenses. China was first to use this technology.
They may have been the first to use this technology, but we also have advanced missiles, and if Chinas were more advanced than they would have already taken over the U.S.
Those depend on radars. Radars are easily jammed and rendered useless. In fact, just detonating 1 nuke in space above the reach of missile defenses would make radar systems useless for several minutes, allowing other nukes to pass undisturbed.
This is false. They depend on satellites which are not easily jammed. The U.S. has 123 military satellites, while North Korea only has 3. That puts us at a huge advantage when it comes to nuclear warfare.
Did you invent the most powerful bomb on earth?
In 1945, the United States of America created and tested the first nuclear bomb. As time went on, other countries tried to copy our design just as they do today. We are still far ahead.
Hence, there is no reason to believe that other countries dont have some secret programs that could maybe cause great damage to US.
Yes, I completely agree with this. Other countries, as well as the U.S., probably do have secret programs, but you keep saying cause great damage to the U.S. and not destroy the U.S. and that's true, but nothing can destroy the U.S. We are too advanced.
Created:
You are assuming that US has a weapon that others dont have. I dont see why you would make such an assumption.
And yes, I am, what's so surprising about that? Is it really that far off to say that the government is hiding advanced technology to use in case of a big attack?
I also believe this to be true for other countries.
The U.S. most definitely has weapons that others don't because we invent the weapons. Other countries just copy off ours and call it their own.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Your exactly right, take global warming for example.
The Government is pushing electric energy, to "stop" global warming, but little does the public know that electric energy won't stop the effects of global warming.
Created:
You couldnt. You dont know where they are or who they are among civilians. Its called guerilla tactical hit and run warfare. Its really simple. You let the enemy take over most of your territory, then he has to defend it while you do surprise attacks out of nowhere and retreat, turning the war into infinite endless war.
Then how did the Taliban not attack when the U.S. troops were in Afghanistan.
Unless its a nuclear war. Then nothing can help you, since Russia, China and North Korea have better ICBMs.
This statement is false. Though Russia does have more advances ICBMs, that we know of, China and especially North Korea doesn't have more advanced ICBM's.
North Korea with its nuclear strategic force is capable of wiping out half the US.
Well, that's only if the U.S. didn't fight back. If we did, we would easily be able to stop them, then see it as an act of war, send over all of our nukes and missiles, and wipe North Korea out in a week.
Yes, their bombs are big, and they can destroy half the U.S. but we have all of our tactical defense missiles to stop them, plus all of our bombs, and our allies who could immediately wipe North Korea off the face of the Earth.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't know why you think America is so weak.
Yes, if its military was better led, then we would be a bigger and stronger military.
But even without that, we are single handedly the strongest and most powerful military force on the planet.
This is why your government thought that war against Talibans(people who defeated Soviet Union) was a good idea.
Let me give you a history lesson:
Starting in 2002 we took over Afghanistan one year after the 9/11 attacks. Then after that we helped them to rebuild. Our one mistake was that we didn't take out all of the Taliban.
Then when Obama became president, he made a stupid decision to pull out of Afghanistan, but then Trump became president, and stopped that. He put forces back in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban's from coming to take it back.
Then recently in 2021, Biden made the single most stupid decision to pull out of Afghanistan again and let the Taliban take over. Then after they realized it was a mistake, they tried to take it back, but the Biden administration was so stupid that they didn't just lose lives, but they didn't win it back.
Now I'm not saying that our government as of right now is powerful, our government is actually going downhill, but the USA's military capability's is the strongest. With the right government, one that will soon come to power, because the Biden Administration is ruining America, we will not stand down.
We might have a small amount of people in the military, but I think you will agree that now in this day and age, people are not of a big factor as it used to be. The US military capabilities are far beyond what even us citizens know.
You really think the US government would show everyone its most powerful weapon? No, we are the most powerful.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, it's not just because of religious reasons.
Science has proved this way of thinking flawed in every way.
Take Gender Dysphoria for example:
It is when someone, thought born one gender, feels like another.
Woke idiots will take this as a sign of someone being transgender, and push that person to get life altering surgeries, that could potentially ruin their life. It would ruin their life and their body, just so that they can feel like the opposite gender.
But there has been evidence in patients with gender dysphoria, that has proven that it does not last forever, and people can come to terms with the gender they were born with.
Cat Cattinson wanted to detransition, because it was physically affecting her.
And the reason no one can find evidence of masses of people detransitioning is because it has happened in our generation, and we haven't seen the full effects of the people who have started that process. But trust me in about 10-15 years, we will see masses of people either dead from transitioning, masses of people detransitioning, or both.
And a question I always ask a person with gender dysphoria, is can you be transgender without transitioning, and if you can, then what's the point.
Created:
Posted in:
The Biden Administration thinks that teaching kids about "Global Warming" and their LGBTQ+ agenda, is more important than teaching them actual school curriculum.
The public school system is already horrible as it is. Why not make it worse.
It is the complete opposite.
It is the Trump supporters who are fighting against these ridiculous ideas and basing their evidence in facts and biology.
So, if anything, the Trump supporters now more than ever are educated, thanks to the Biden Administration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yea people say stupid things that is human nature. But your evidence that uneducated people tend to be trump supporters is because they say stupid things.
Well then with that logic I could say that uneducated people tend to be everyone, since everyone says stupid things.
And also, did you go to middle school English class, because if you did, they would have taught you that you can't use an opinion to prove things. Yes, it was an opinion piece, but the first line states a fact that is not a matter of opinion.
Yes, it was an opinion piece, but the first line states a fact that is not a matter of opinion. “The Trumpist belief that the 2020 election was fraudulent was always rooted in fiction
Plus, the fraud of the 2020 elections wasn't rooted in fiction, because there is evidence backing up mail in voting, something that actually happened, and there were more votes cast in total, than there were alive citizens of the USA at that time.
You say that statement was a fact that is not a matter of opinion. Well, I could say that about literally any opinion. It doesn't have any factual evidence to back it up, other than they say stupid things. Everyone says stupid things. The Biden administration has said some of the most ludicrous and insane statements in all of America's history.
Created:
Posted in:
If it's based in fact and logic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Your article in an opinionated article.
Created: