blackamerica wrote: »

A secret elite group of powerful organizations secretly plotting for world dominance without the mass public's knowledge. Its not really much of a conspiracy. Its only when you use the word "Illuminati" people get defensive.

if they're not "plotting world dominance," just "plotting to make more money," are they still what YOU call the Illuminati? because someone else might say that still qualifies, and a third person might say that doesn't. this is the "definitions can vary" point.

blackamerica wrote: »

If acting weird requires mock sacrifices & strange sexual activities then thats all you should need. Again, these things have been well documented and backed up with photographic proof.

wait, so every photograph of people engaging in weird sexual activity is proof of a vast conspiracy theory? because here i thought you were familiar with the internet.

blackamerica wrote: »

You see, there you go. You've ALREADY decided one sides unconvincing before you even gathered all the information lol. Thats the difference between us. I'll look at ALL theories and THEN determine which side I stand on. While niggaz like you take a position before any of the information presents itself.

please don't write that bullshit and tell me I have made up MY mind. i literally told you in this thread that i have read conspiratorial books you mention AND ones you have not, but because i don't agree with you, you immediately drag out this "take a position before any of the information presents itself" ... which basically tells me you're being a hypocrite about the whole thing.

if i read 20 books and find them redundant (hence the "one thing repeated 20 times is one thing" part), what's the magic number of books i have to read before i can meet your standard and then be allowed to disagree with you? ultimately, that's the deal: if i don't accept YOUR beliefs, instead of you accepting that OR making real arguments, you just roll the tired old "you need to do more RESEARCH" shit. sad.

jono wrote: »

Me personally I'm not eating insects...I would have to be starving to do so.

eh, if you're eating packaged foods, you're eating bug parts, so fuck it, why not go all the way

Plutarch wrote: »

Point taken, but we're talking about South Korea. I don't think that South Korea has the technology, the numbers, the money, the status, experience, or culture to match Russia. Despite the occasional pebbles that North Korea has thrown, South Korea has largely been in a state of peace. Russia deals with violence regularly and settles it effectively. Just ask Chechnya and Georgia. Russia will never be conquered. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler.

well...

technology? i'm not really sure what Russia brings to the table that demonstrates they have a technological edge over SK.
numbers? the thing i hinted at before is checking out how surprisingly large SK's military actually is. yes, Russia IS bigger in the end, but...
money? one of the biggest problems with Russia's military is that it's not as lavishly funded as you might expect (and thus the issues this breeds). they can't all be Spetsnaz units.
experience? we'll come back to this, i guess...
culture? i really don't know what kind of edge Russia gets here, to be honest.

now, while we call them "occasional pebbles," it's an ongoing threat that keeps SK perpetually in a state of readiness. whereas Russia dealing with violence effectively? well, you mention Chechnya, but that took TWO wars, an incredible amount of repression, and that conflict still isn't actually resolved (not to mention it spreading to neighboring republics). and Georgia? okay, i suppose it's fair to say Georgia literally started that war and Russia DID come out on top... but if you look at the conflict, it's not really a very flattering portrayal of Russia's prowess.

i mean, hey, it's your vote and Russia could win a war against SK, i could see it happening, but...

FuriousOne wrote: »

How Libertarian is Ron Paul really?

i say it more in this sense: however libertarian you find Ron Paul to be, Rand is self-admittedly less.

Rand Paul has also admitted he's not as libertarian as his father. so... there's that.