The Plan, not a "theory"

As long as these people have existed there have been detractors they have "fought" this battle and in what way have won? Come on dude, the more insane you sound the less likely people will be to believe you. Just "spreading the truth" is not a plan to end this thing. That is such total crapola. You've been "spreading the truth" all this time, centuries, and still they exist and continue to promote their agenda.

So, attempting to give some blame to others who are not joining you on this crusade of spreading the truth on them and make them some sort of sinner in this is flatly laughable.

Spreading the truth is the same as doing nothing in this case because it has exactly the same effect.

The attempt by those who are "spreading the truth" to include as many groups as possible makes it even less likely that others will believe you, especially when they know people of each of those groups and simply reject that their friend would be part of this.

Also, each time you inject race into it people are automatically going to reject much of what you say. Therefore "noahide" and "jew" should remain outside of your rhetoric when attempting to "spread the truth" so that people will actually listen rather than reject. Even if noahides and jews are in it, just give names and let people research rather than sounding like a nutjob nazi promoting anti-jewish rhetoric to "save the world" status.
 
Damocles said:
As long as these people have existed there have been detractors they have "fought" this battle and in what way have won? Come on dude, the more insane you sound the less likely people will be to believe you. Just "spreading the truth" is not a plan to end this thing. That is such total crapola. You've been "spreading the truth" all this time, centuries, and still they exist and continue to promote their agenda.

So, attempting to give some blame to others who are not joining you on this crusade of spreading the truth on them and make them some sort of sinner in this is flatly laughable.

Spreading the truth is the same as doing nothing in this case because it has exactly the same effect.

The attempt by those who are "spreading the truth" to include as many groups as possible makes it even less likely that others will believe you, especially when they know people of each of those groups and simply reject that their friend would be part of this.

Also, each time you inject race into it people are automatically going to reject much of what you say. Therefore "noahide" and "jew" should remain outside of your rhetoric when attempting to "spread the truth" so that people will actually listen rather than reject. Even if noahides and jews are in it, just give names and let people research rather than sounding like a nutjob nazi promoting anti-jewish rhetoric to "save the world" status.
Click to expand...

First you're in hysterical denial, now you're criticizing my approach. You're flatly laughable.
 
AssHatZombie said:
First you're in hysterical denial, now you're criticizing my approach. You're flatly laughable.
Click to expand...
There is no hysterical denial in the fact that I stated that I believe that some of what you say is correct. Your attempt at making it so just makes you appear desperate.

I criticize the approach because it is the very approach that has not worked for centuries. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one of the definitions of insanity.
 
Everything I want to do is just a list of things we're just "not going to do" from your point of view. That's not a rationale for what we are doing. you dismiss any alternative because you're a closed minded fascist cretin.

Well, this is just not true. Everything you want to do is just things we've already tried, and it didn't fix the problem of human rights in China, because the problem obviously still exists. I haven't dismissed any alternative we haven't tried, go ahead, present one! I'm not being closed minded, I am willing to discuss anything within reason.

We can put trade sanction on our enemies, and we should. We can change them. You've basically given up fighting evil, unless it threatens your precious masters, the jews. WHy will you fight in iraq, but doing something about china is simply "undoable"? What accounts for this disparity in resolve?

We had trade sanctions on China, for many years, we simply refused to trade with them, because they were our enemy. We didn't change them, that is the point. What you seem to be failing to understand is this... unlike other third-world countries, China doesnt depend on trade with the US to survive. There are countries we could cut off trade with, and make them dance like little monkeys for us, because they have no other economic choice, China isn't one of those. They will simply snub their noses at us and trade with Russia.

I also want to point out, the Jews are not my masters, I am a Christian, and only have ONE Master. China is not Iraq, and we can't handle China like Iraq, or any other third-world country. Sure, we could invade China, and we could probably defeat them in battle, is that what you suggest we should do? There will be a lot of American soldiers coming home in flag-draped coffins, are you sure that's the road you want to go down? Should this happen, it would make the daily death toll postings on Iraq, look like a Sunday School Picnic.

see everyone, To dixie, making a moral choice simply because it's moral is an outdated mode of thinking. And empowering enemies with billions of trade is the right thing to do. He's a traitor to america, and god, and is on his path to hell, having proclaimed goodness as something the world can't afford.

Now this is getting ridiculous. You can't make a rational argument for my points, so you resort to attacking me morally? And to "empower", is to give power that wasn't previously there, this is not the case with China, they are already 'empowered'. Our stubborn refusal to trade with them, wouldn't effect anything, they have plenty of other nations who will buy cheap goods and services from them, and they really don't need American dollars, never have, and never will. Trade is simply a means to political opportunity and change. With it, we have some leverage on China, we have mutual economic interests, without it, we have nothing and can effect no change. You can't present a logical counter to this point, because you understand it is valid, and so you resort to the low-blow tactic of attacking my morality and trying to guilt me into accepting your idiocy. Ask anyone here, that don't work with me, sorry.
 
Dixie said:
Everything I want to do is just a list of things we're just "not going to do" from your point of view. That's not a rationale for what we are doing. you dismiss any alternative because you're a closed minded fascist cretin.

Well, this is just not true. Everything you want to do is just things we've already tried, and it didn't fix the problem of human rights in China, because the problem obviously still exists. I haven't dismissed any alternative we haven't tried, go ahead, present one! I'm not being closed minded, I am willing to discuss anything within reason.

We can put trade sanction on our enemies, and we should. We can change them. You've basically given up fighting evil, unless it threatens your precious masters, the jews. WHy will you fight in iraq, but doing something about china is simply "undoable"? What accounts for this disparity in resolve?

We had trade sanctions on China, for many years, we simply refused to trade with them, because they were our enemy. We didn't change them, that is the point. What you seem to be failing to understand is this... unlike other third-world countries, China doesnt depend on trade with the US to survive. There are countries we could cut off trade with, and make them dance like little monkeys for us, because they have no other economic choice, China isn't one of those. They will simply snub their noses at us and trade with Russia.

I also want to point out, the Jews are not my masters, I am a Christian, and only have ONE Master. China is not Iraq, and we can't handle China like Iraq, or any other third-world country. Sure, we could invade China, and we could probably defeat them in battle, is that what you suggest we should do? There will be a lot of American soldiers coming home in flag-draped coffins, are you sure that's the road you want to go down? Should this happen, it would make the daily death toll postings on Iraq, look like a Sunday School Picnic.

see everyone, To dixie, making a moral choice simply because it's moral is an outdated mode of thinking. And empowering enemies with billions of trade is the right thing to do. He's a traitor to america, and god, and is on his path to hell, having proclaimed goodness as something the world can't afford.

Now this is getting ridiculous. You can't make a rational argument for my points, so you resort to attacking me morally? And to "empower", is to give power that wasn't previously there, this is not the case with China, they are already 'empowered'. Our stubborn refusal to trade with them, wouldn't effect anything, they have plenty of other nations who will buy cheap goods and services from them, and they really don't need American dollars, never have, and never will. Trade is simply a means to political opportunity and change. With it, we have some leverage on China, we have mutual economic interests, without it, we have nothing and can effect no change. You can't present a logical counter to this point, because you understand it is valid, and so you resort to the low-blow tactic of attacking my morality and trying to guilt me into accepting your idiocy. Ask anyone here, that don't work with me, sorry.
Click to expand...


No. You're not willing to discuss things openly. Sanctions do work to control behavior. We didn't sustain russia with huge production contracts, we let them crumble from the inside. THe real question is "why did we abandon a successful strategy when it came to china"

The bottom line is we're empowering our enemies with trade dollars. YOu can call it other words, but that doesn't change the inherent stupidity of this current policy.

You're basically suggesting america act powerless, act like we've been defeated, act like we have no choice but to accept totalitarianism as something to be partnered with and profitted from instead of something to be excluded from the brotherhood of man. You've lost your way and are hurting the nation with your brainwashed neocon pseudologic.
 
What were people saying at that time when kissinger et all were doing there "open up china" routine? Im too young. DIdn't anyone have concerns about that? Was it the same fuckers doing it then that are doing it now? Implementing shit ideas and calling it wise? And arguing with anyone who saw them as the naked emperors they were?
 
Yes pretty much the same thing from the same group. Those standing to profit from the deal were happy, the rest mostly did not understand the future implications. Not even the press, who were actually liberal then.
 
Ohh. and global illiuminati fascist controllers, if you're reading this, my silence can be purchased. Taking me the hard way would mean too much publicity for you. I have several media kits poised to go out automatically if I do not call everyday and give the passcode.
 
Illuminati, that is the anem I could not remember earlier. Yep and they have a treasure under DC.
Or is it Pookeepsie ?
 
uscitizen said:
Illuminati, that is the anem I could not remember earlier. Yep and they have a treasure under DC.
Or is it Pookeepsie ?
Click to expand...

Their real treasure is their occult knowledge, the knowledge of how to pervert whole societies at a time, with totalitarian hierarchies. ( a priestly class?)

But we should switch to the same topology as the internet, equally powerful interconnected and redundant nodes.
 
Occult knowledge ? I don't believe in that hocus pocus stuff.
From what I have learned of the illuminati, they were the first international bankers. ie capitalists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top