Titor is a fruad?! Well check this video!
- Thread starter heydudemandude
- Start date
heydudemandude
Temporal Novice
Titor: There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.
What I think: This is true for the fact that we have people that are against the government and we have people thats all for it. People are argumenting over the whole thing in iraq. A civil war doesn't always mean to use weapons to fight.
Titor: In 2015, Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won.
What I think: In the video he just basicly said that our government sucks and that the war is just the begining. It's our government that he dislikes and not the people thats in the USA.
Titor: The war is a result of faulty politics and desperation from Western leadership during the US civil war. Yes, I suppose you could stop it.
What I think: Think about it....We captured saddam.....
What I think: This is true for the fact that we have people that are against the government and we have people thats all for it. People are argumenting over the whole thing in iraq. A civil war doesn't always mean to use weapons to fight.
Titor: In 2015, Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won.
What I think: In the video he just basicly said that our government sucks and that the war is just the begining. It's our government that he dislikes and not the people thats in the USA.
Titor: The war is a result of faulty politics and desperation from Western leadership during the US civil war. Yes, I suppose you could stop it.
What I think: Think about it....We captured saddam.....
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
heydudemandude,
You got your own dictionary of terms you are working on?
war - A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
and then we have:
civil war - A war between factions or regions of the same country.
Beyond this, the context within which Titor claimed the civil war would break out included his "Waco-like" events...clearly that is an armed conflict if ever I saw one!
It's been quiet on the board for awhile...so I guess it was about TIME for someone to pop-up and (once again) try to re-interpret the words and phrases that Titor used to mean something different. Will you be willing to admit he is a fraud when we are not in a civil war by the time of the 2008 elections? Or are you so enamored by him that you'll do whatever is necessary (including re-interpreting his words) to make him right?
RMT
You got your own dictionary of terms you are working on?
I'm sorry, but the way he used it, yes it does.
war - A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
and then we have:
civil war - A war between factions or regions of the same country.
Beyond this, the context within which Titor claimed the civil war would break out included his "Waco-like" events...clearly that is an armed conflict if ever I saw one!
It's been quiet on the board for awhile...so I guess it was about TIME for someone to pop-up and (once again) try to re-interpret the words and phrases that Titor used to mean something different. Will you be willing to admit he is a fraud when we are not in a civil war by the time of the 2008 elections? Or are you so enamored by him that you'll do whatever is necessary (including re-interpreting his words) to make him right?
RMT
heydudemandude
Temporal Novice
are you really that stupid? If you read what titor said he didn't even say there were weapons used against each other untill 2015 when Russia decides to help the right people out. BTW here is the definition of war...
War: A contest between nations or states, carried on by force,
whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition
of territory, for obtaining and establishing the
superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any
other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers;
declared and open hostilities.
What's going on now with the people fighting about politics:
Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to read previous entries.
http://slate.msn.com/ id/2109218/
____________________________________
Hundreds March In Anti-Bush And Anti-War Protest
SEATTLE - About 500 protesters marched through downtown Seattle Saturday, venting their frustration over President Bush's re-election and calling for United States troops to be pulled out of Iraq.
http://www.komotv. com/stories/33841.htm
___________________________________
Peaceful protests protect America
Police responded to vandalism at the GOP building to find, as reported, broken windows, kerosene-soaked rags, vulgar slogans and charred effigy. The spray paint canisters and half-burned dolls depicting George W. Bush and John F. Kerry were found near the scenes of both protests.
What is weird about this occurrence is that it falls in line with a string of retaliation in the days since Bush was announced as president. All over the country, students -- young men and women -- are marching, vandalizing, camping out and protesting. From the 85 high school students in Colorado camping out in their school library, to 1,000 protesters demonstrating on the streets of Portland, Ore. to the 5,000 people that started a bonfire in the heart of San Francisco during a march through the streets -- all to show their disapproval of Bush being re-elected.
http://technicianonline. com/story.php?id=010515
___________________________________________________
and many more....
If you don't think there is a civil war going on right now in our states you got mad issues. I just proved you wrong and for you to just keep telling people that everything that titor said is complete false that just shows to tell you that your in 100% denial and need to get your head checked.
War: A contest between nations or states, carried on by force,
whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition
of territory, for obtaining and establishing the
superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any
other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers;
declared and open hostilities.
What's going on now with the people fighting about politics:
Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to read previous entries.
http://slate.msn.com/ id/2109218/
____________________________________
Hundreds March In Anti-Bush And Anti-War Protest
SEATTLE - About 500 protesters marched through downtown Seattle Saturday, venting their frustration over President Bush's re-election and calling for United States troops to be pulled out of Iraq.
http://www.komotv. com/stories/33841.htm
___________________________________
Peaceful protests protect America
Police responded to vandalism at the GOP building to find, as reported, broken windows, kerosene-soaked rags, vulgar slogans and charred effigy. The spray paint canisters and half-burned dolls depicting George W. Bush and John F. Kerry were found near the scenes of both protests.
What is weird about this occurrence is that it falls in line with a string of retaliation in the days since Bush was announced as president. All over the country, students -- young men and women -- are marching, vandalizing, camping out and protesting. From the 85 high school students in Colorado camping out in their school library, to 1,000 protesters demonstrating on the streets of Portland, Ore. to the 5,000 people that started a bonfire in the heart of San Francisco during a march through the streets -- all to show their disapproval of Bush being re-elected.
http://technicianonline. com/story.php?id=010515
___________________________________________________
and many more....
If you don't think there is a civil war going on right now in our states you got mad issues. I just proved you wrong and for you to just keep telling people that everything that titor said is complete false that just shows to tell you that your in 100% denial and need to get your head checked.
KerrTexas
Super Moderator
Heydude,
In this country nobody has been 100% happy with the government. You could look back in our history and pick any point in time as a marker for a possible civil war.
Will changes take place as time moves forward...yes. And as always, not everybody will be happy about the changes. This doesn't mean that there is a civil war taking place...or will be...unless by your definition, then a civil war has been going since day one, and hasn't stopped since that day.
And as I asked before in another thread, what do YOU want US to do ?
In this country nobody has been 100% happy with the government. You could look back in our history and pick any point in time as a marker for a possible civil war.
Will changes take place as time moves forward...yes. And as always, not everybody will be happy about the changes. This doesn't mean that there is a civil war taking place...or will be...unless by your definition, then a civil war has been going since day one, and hasn't stopped since that day.
And as I asked before in another thread, what do YOU want US to do ?
Darby
Epochal Historian
heydude,
That statement is quite correct but only trivially so in the context of our discussion. It simply defines the rationale behind having more than one political party. Political opponents always debate and argue over contested points of view. This is a requirement of the multi political party system of elected government-official representation. There's nothing new there.
Actually, is means just that - an armed insurrection of some sort where real people really die. Protest and dissent are not civil war but are two legitimate avenues for the "redress of grievances" alluded to in the 1st Amendment. We have that Constitutional right - to protest. We have absolutely no Constitutional right to make civil war against the government. On the contrary - Article III, Section 3 defines treason as the making of war against the United States (by someone who owes allegiance to the US). The Constitution forbids civil war against the US by making such an act the highest of all crimes.
But my question to you was what relationship does a 14 month old video of some relatively irrelevent MP, George Galloway, in Great Britain who is expressing his personal political opinion in a political forum on a matter of the Middle East (while calling it "fact") have to do with the John Titor saga?
In your original post you linked the video and quipped, "'Nuff said" without making any attempt to drawing a nexus between the title of your thread, the video and "Nuff said."
Here's the problem that I have with the quip. I watched the video. I considered the title of your post. "Nuff said" says more about you than it does about MP Galloway or TTO/Titor. It indicates to me that you never questioned Galloway's numbers (a million people - mostly children - dead), political motives or other "facts" that he presented. You heard, from an elected government official, exactly what you wanted to hear and thus swollowed it whole...hook, line and sinker. You then expanded the thought to support Titor's Saga and completely forgot what the saga was all about - not trusting government.
So, after hearing this political animal (they are all such animals...something that I don't have a problem with) speak what did you do, independently, to verify that what he said was true? Or did you simply trust that because he's Irish and an elected Member of Parliament that everything he said just had to be the complete, unadourned truth with no political over or under tones?
What do you know about MP George Galloway (Labour Party)? Has his own liberal party ever expelled him for misconduct, for instance? Who is George Galloway?
That statement is quite correct but only trivially so in the context of our discussion. It simply defines the rationale behind having more than one political party. Political opponents always debate and argue over contested points of view. This is a requirement of the multi political party system of elected government-official representation. There's nothing new there.
Actually, is means just that - an armed insurrection of some sort where real people really die. Protest and dissent are not civil war but are two legitimate avenues for the "redress of grievances" alluded to in the 1st Amendment. We have that Constitutional right - to protest. We have absolutely no Constitutional right to make civil war against the government. On the contrary - Article III, Section 3 defines treason as the making of war against the United States (by someone who owes allegiance to the US). The Constitution forbids civil war against the US by making such an act the highest of all crimes.
But my question to you was what relationship does a 14 month old video of some relatively irrelevent MP, George Galloway, in Great Britain who is expressing his personal political opinion in a political forum on a matter of the Middle East (while calling it "fact") have to do with the John Titor saga?
In your original post you linked the video and quipped, "'Nuff said" without making any attempt to drawing a nexus between the title of your thread, the video and "Nuff said."
Here's the problem that I have with the quip. I watched the video. I considered the title of your post. "Nuff said" says more about you than it does about MP Galloway or TTO/Titor. It indicates to me that you never questioned Galloway's numbers (a million people - mostly children - dead), political motives or other "facts" that he presented. You heard, from an elected government official, exactly what you wanted to hear and thus swollowed it whole...hook, line and sinker. You then expanded the thought to support Titor's Saga and completely forgot what the saga was all about - not trusting government.
So, after hearing this political animal (they are all such animals...something that I don't have a problem with) speak what did you do, independently, to verify that what he said was true? Or did you simply trust that because he's Irish and an elected Member of Parliament that everything he said just had to be the complete, unadourned truth with no political over or under tones?
What do you know about MP George Galloway (Labour Party)? Has his own liberal party ever expelled him for misconduct, for instance? Who is George Galloway?
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
heydudemandude,
Have a nice day,
RMT
I see you are starting our discussion on a tenuous note. If you have reviewed any (many) of my previous posts you will see that I will start out congenially, but if you are going to descend into namecalling this quickly, you had better strap on your boots and goggles, because I will give you a rough ride, pardner.
So, in essence, you are taking the liberty to co-mingle the words he used describing inter-nation war with those he used to describe the civil war, yes? Because it is clear to me that is exactly what you are doing... IOW, you are confusing two different topics Titor spoke about.
Be a good boy and cite your sources, will you please? I plainly left links to my source of definitions. You have not. However, allow me to bold some words in your own definition that serve to further support the definitions I provided:
So even by your own definition of war that you have supplied, it supports the fact that war (in our case a civil war) is certainly defined by "armed conflict" and "force". So despite what you think, you have not only NOT proven me wrong, you have supported my point that corrected your initial statement. Thanks for that.
It seems from what little I have seen of you, that you have some political agendas (similar to those of Titor's). I choose not to engage you on these, for now, but reserve the right to do so in the future (if I find it would be fun).
Ever think the flipside is true? IOW, the fact that you seem to think there is a civil war going on right now could mean YOU have "mad issues" of your own? Did you live through the 60s? I did... and what we went thru back then was MUCH closer to civil war than what we see now... and yet even THAT was NOT civil war!
Excuse me? I must have missed that. EXACTLY HOW did you prove me wrong? I see nothing of the sort....as I mentioned above your definition of war clearly supports the one I provided. So where, precisely, do you THINK you have proven me wrong?
Never, EVER have I used the word "everything" to relate to Titor's falseness. Indeed, some of what he said is true (he had some nuggets about science and current events that were clearly true). So no, I am not going to let you slip by with an unfounded accusation against me that I said "everything" that Titor said was false. But you have to admit, there is a LARGE number of Titor's predictions that clearly have NOT come to pass.... Wanna start with the last Olympics? Or then there are what Darby calls the "weekly wacky Waco-type events".
Believe me, dude, you really don't want to go there. If you want a battle of insults you could very well get it if you keep up this behavior. And there are some folks around here who will tell you just what you might be getting into. I will let you know when I am taking off the "kid gloves" in dealing with you... and you might wish to run for the hills at that point.
Have a nice day,
RMT
Paradox244
Temporal Novice
There are always people against the current administration. That's how we run things in America, and in Britian too. It's called Democracy. It doesn't mean there's a civil war, it means that people have different ideas as to what the government should do and how it should be run. That has been the case in America ever since the Constitution was proposed and different groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, debated as to weather or not it should be adopted. It has continued to the present day. It is how our system is made, and it does not mean a civil war. Also, there have not been monthly "Waco-like" events leading up to this supposed "civil war." Nada. Nothing.