It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Out of 300 + million Americans, there isn't a single American Putin to lead ?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I brought video and picture evidence of some examples of how the truth is manipulated and omitted right before our very eyes.


Uh... I DID call it a Republican conspiracy. I said it several times. I didn't however acknowledge your stretch that it is evidence of a shadow government at work. I have NEVER denied that conspiracies happen or that people manipulate the truth to push their agendas. I just don't accept your conclusion that a single shadow government is responsible for all of this. The world is more complicated than that (Plato's Cave).


You simply continue to cover it up.


I'm not covering anything up...


You must understand I am not trying to convince you of anything, just responding to show others how you roll.


Yes, because I've only been an active member on these forums since February of 2012 with 30,000+ posts. If people haven't figured out how I "roll" yet then that is their problem; they don't need you enlightening them. To me, this looks like a flimsy excuse to excuse your weak supposition that a shadow government secretly runs our country. You recognize that you have a weak argument, so you pretend like you are addressing the audience and educating them on your opponent's posting habits instead of backing up your points with actual substance.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

I posted information on the previous page that paints the author of that book as a revisionist history author who made up things to paint the picture of a dark conspiracy. I also pointed out that he is a YECer who promotes Creationism over Evolution so his ideas on history are likely to be flawed. There is probably a deep confirmation bias at work in him to see these conspiracies.


Ok then, you're must be right. I'll defer to your inside knowledge. There are no secrets or shadow government. CFR, Bilderberg, etc. have no hidden agendas. JFK was a paranoid schizophrenic when he spoke about secret societies.

"I will leave it up to you to come to your own conclusion as to what this speech is about, but it is apparent that he is well aware that secret societies exist and are attempting to infiltrate society. In his own words he finds the situation “repugnant”
Below are some quotes from the event, followed by a video that broadcasts the essence of his speech. Lastly, the entire speech has been transcribed for people who wish to read everything he had to say on that day.

* “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings”

* “Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack”

* “We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day”

* “It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations”
wakeup-world.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

There's that strawman again. Just because someone doesn't believe some shadow government is pulling strings from the eldrich caverns of Cheyenne Mountain or something, doesn't mean they don't give the proper credence to other conspiracies.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Please don't twist my words. A crappy debate tactic people do when they are losing the argument is pretend like the situation is an either/or situation. In your case, shadow government or no conspiracies at all. But here's the thing, BOTH of those narratives are too simplistic. Saying that conspiracies don't exist is naive and shortsighted, but saying that they are all under the thumb of a singular organization is equally naive and shortsighted.

Even the elite have varying agendas and priorities. They are after all human as well. To view them all as one monolithic entity of evil is just as idiotic as saying all Christians believe in young earth creationism. Naturally those different agendas and priorities will at times align to make the appearance of ongoing collusion, but other times they are starkly opposed to each other. Much of this "shadow government" conspiracy tends to discard the evidence of when these different priorities and agendas are opposed to each other, but then will list for days the times that they are in alignment. That is called confirmation bias.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I get your point, but if these people think that Obama is a 'dictator', they would die if someone like Putin became president and did anything he wanted to do. lol

But on topic, Why isn't there a beloved military leader? We all loved the leaders in the first gulf war and Colin Powell. We don't these guys ever run?



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: UnBreakable

Fatty Tuna Nigiri and good Sake is bliss. Ignorance is ignorance.

You're strawmanning me. Making the assumption that since I don't believe in a Shadow Government, I also must believe the official story of the Kennedy Assassination. It was a nice attempt at deflection, but you have yet to show evidence of a shadow government, which is what would sway my opinion.


Who'se "strawmanning" who? Nobody has yet to prove the actual existence of the shadow government, thus they wouldn't be "secret" anymore. Why wouldn't you believe the official story of the assassination? If no secret or shadow government exists it would stand to reason that the "surface" government must have told us the truth. As for deflection, you can obviously prove the real intentions of the CFR, Bilderberg, etc. You must also know the truth about Benghazi, 9-11, and the like. Please share, I'd be interested, cause damned if I know.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing


But on topic, Why isn't there a beloved military leader? We all loved the leaders in the first gulf war and Colin Powell. We don't these guys ever run?

They already do -- run things. You can tell because every solution is a military one. More bases, arms and insurgencies.
The biggest building in America is the Pentagon. The biggest budget, the military. The most destruction caused in the world right now is caused by the US military.

Once the military is given carte blanche there is no end to it. Well, there is but thats buried in the ruins, till next time.
edit on 17-3-2015 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

This is a gish gallop. First, demand an explanation for a bunch of different topics that are all equally deep conversations with supporting evidence and reasoning then declare victory if all the topics haven't been adequately debunked by the response.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Seriously? I'll leave you with Krazyshot's reply, as he said it far better than I would, given the limited time and brain power I would prefer to invest in debating you.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The world is more complicated than that (Plato's Cave).

Duh, Its an allegory used to make a point…


Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to designate names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

WIKI


When you claim there is no shadow government (get it… shadow?) you are actually setting yourself here as one who is behind the dwellers in the cave manipulating the shadows. You do that by insisting the images we see are real. You in fact say, "there is no shadow government, behind the scenes".

Please continue.
edit on 17-3-2015 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

Please don't twist my words. A crappy debate tactic people do when they are losing the argument is pretend like the situation is an either/or situation. In your case, shadow government or no conspiracies at all. But here's the thing, BOTH of those narratives are too simplistic. Saying that conspiracies don't exist is naive and shortsighted, but saying that they are all under the thumb of a singular organization is equally naive and shortsighted.

Even the elite have varying agendas and priorities. They are after all human as well. To view them all as one monolithic entity of evil is just as idiotic as saying all Christians believe in young earth creationism. Naturally those different agendas and priorities will at times align to make the appearance of ongoing collusion, but other times they are starkly opposed to each other. Much of this "shadow government" conspiracy tends to discard the evidence of when these different priorities and agendas are opposed to each other, but then will list for days the times that they are in alignment. That is called confirmation bias.


So when you give a response it is a well presented reply. When I give a side it's "word twisting" and a "crappy debate tactic" since I'm "losing the argument." Ok.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

When you use textbook examples of poor debate tactics, expect to get called out on it.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

Please don't twist my words. A crappy debate tactic people do when they are losing the argument is pretend like the situation is an either/or situation. In your case, shadow government or no conspiracies at all. But here's the thing, BOTH of those narratives are too simplistic. Saying that conspiracies don't exist is naive and shortsighted, but saying that they are all under the thumb of a singular organization is equally naive and shortsighted.

Even the elite have varying agendas and priorities. They are after all human as well. To view them all as one monolithic entity of evil is just as idiotic as saying all Christians believe in young earth creationism. Naturally those different agendas and priorities will at times align to make the appearance of ongoing collusion, but other times they are starkly opposed to each other. Much of this "shadow government" conspiracy tends to discard the evidence of when these different priorities and agendas are opposed to each other, but then will list for days the times that they are in alignment. That is called confirmation bias.


So when you give a response it is a well presented reply. When I give a side it's "word twisting" and a "crappy debate tactic" since I'm "losing the argument." Ok.


Well when you use a fallacy, I'm going to call you on it. You used the tired duality strawman that if one extreme isn't true than the other extreme must be true and it is old hat and terrible arguing. You can easily get your point across much better than stooping to such low brow tactics.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

This is a gish gallop. First, demand an explanation for a bunch of different topics that are all equally deep conversations with supporting evidence and reasoning then declare victory if all the topics haven't been adequately debunked by the response.


I never declared victory. Please show me where I did. You had previously said I was "losing the argument" i.e. you were declaring victory. Thanks for classifying your behavior for me. I had never heard of Gish Gallop. You're obviously well versed in that tactic since you use it so much.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
When you claim there is no shadow government (get it… shadow?) you are actually setting yourself here as one who is behind the dwellers in the cave manipulating the shadows. You do that by insisting the images we see are real. You in fact say, "there is no shadow government, behind the scenes".

Please continue.


I know what you are getting at by bringing up the Plato's Cave allegory. Trust me. When I countered you with the allegory, I was showing that the shadow government thinking is just more Cave talk. You are inventing an explanation for events that you don't see the full picture for from inside the cave (shadow government) when in reality, the truth is MUCH more complicated and complex.

This is why I've accused you of not understanding the allegory. By bringing it up in your talk of shadow governments without compelling evidence, you've only played into the allegory and proved that you are still a cave dweller. You think you have the whole picture, but you don't and you don't realize how much information you are missing. Meanwhile, I'M not making ANY assumptions on this. I say that a shadow government is too simplistic of an answer, but I'm not discounting that nefarious agendas are at work in our government. They are just likely not all unified under a single agenda.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

This is a gish gallop. First, demand an explanation for a bunch of different topics that are all equally deep conversations with supporting evidence and reasoning then declare victory if all the topics haven't been adequately debunked by the response.


I never declared victory. Please show me where I did. You had previously said I was "losing the argument" i.e. you were declaring victory. Thanks for classifying your behavior for me. I had never heard of Gish Gallop. You're obviously well versed in that tactic since you use it so much.


Oh the declaration of victory can be implied. The important part of the Gallop (what you are guilty of) is this:

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.


And no, I don't use that technique. Ever. If I have, I challenge you to produce a single post of mine where I listed a bunch of different debate topics and demanded that my opponent debate them. The reason I'm familiar with it, is because it is commonly used in Evolution debates to try to debunk Evolution.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: UnBreakable

When you use textbook examples of poor debate tactics, expect to get called out on it.


Glad to see you're fighting Krazyshots battles for him, although I think he is more than capable of going it alone. Thanks for the input as to my debating skills. Please give me lessons since you obviously wrote the textbook on debate tactics.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

The only book I've ever written is my personal diary. Though if you do desire to educate yourself on debate tactics and logical fallacies, This Website is good starting point.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


when in reality, the truth is MUCH more complicated and complex.

Crapola. its that simple. You claim there is no such thing as a shadow government. I pointed out that is exactly the deception represented in Platos Cave.

Where do you think the terms Shadow in 'shadow government' and 'behind the scenes' came from, philosophically speaking?

Keep showing your true colors, deny the truth forever. Ain;t impressing me with edumacated, know it all banter.

Thats why they told Socrates to stop teaching the students and leave, or else… the powers that be don't want aware, independent thinking as a product of "higher learning", they want minions of the state.

"There is no shadow government", lol.

Done here…



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

This is a gish gallop. First, demand an explanation for a bunch of different topics that are all equally deep conversations with supporting evidence and reasoning then declare victory if all the topics haven't been adequately debunked by the response.


I never declared victory. Please show me where I did. You had previously said I was "losing the argument" i.e. you were declaring victory. Thanks for classifying your behavior for me. I had never heard of Gish Gallop. You're obviously well versed in that tactic since you use it so much.


Oh the declaration of victory can be implied. The important part of the Gallop (what you are guilty of) is this:

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.


And no, I don't use that technique. Ever. If I have, I challenge you to produce a single post of mine where I listed a bunch of different debate topics and demanded that my opponent debate them. The reason I'm familiar with it, is because it is commonly used in Evolution debates to try to debunk Evolution.


Implied? Again, you're the one who said I was losing the argument. Therefore you implied victory. Way off topic here. Good day, sir.




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join