Mainstream wrote:I was not denying that the weather can be changed by chemicals or chemtrails, I was denying that they are for the reasons ultimately you give
I know. You're saying the government wouldn't use this (every single time) to control it's citizens, which is completely naive. It shows you have never once studied history, which means there is too much of a gap to continue.
So we're done.
Mainstream wrote:Don't be mad because I'm only here to talk to those with perception.
Develop some.
Mainstream wrote:Don't be mad because I'm only here to talk to those with perception.
Develop some.
I think we can conclude that it involves the weather, and something called orgonite.
Someone with a passion for learning might google that; someone without might not.
captaincrunk wrote:I'm reporting this thread to be moved to the rant house, because if Gobbo (mainstream) won't provide any evidence or justification for his wild assertions it isn't philosophy.
Stoic Guardian wrote:It's not in philosophy though...
Stoic Guardian wrote:It's not in philosophy though...
Stoic Guardian wrote:It' in philosophy forums but not the specific subcatagory of just philosophy.
Maybe it doesn't matter? I don't know...
Stoic Guardian wrote:It' in philosophy forums but not the specific subcatagory of just philosophy.
Maybe it doesn't matter? I don't know...
Mainstream wrote:As I said in this thread, weather control was perfected in the 70's,
Mainstream wrote:The real question is whether I am even right about that. The more time goes on, the more I am just consistently disappointed and fail to really see any place for these people in the coming world order.
We don't even have weather prediction "perfected" yet.
Mainstream wrote:We don't even have weather prediction "perfected" yet.
I just laid out in detail how you do, so if you cannot address any of my points, then you're just repeating yourself senselessly.
I have cited evidence. You have not.
You haven't cited anything, dude.
Mainstream wrote:You haven't cited anything, dude.
I don't think you know what that word means.
Citing means referencing something. You are looking for me to link you a webpage, which is completely different.
How many times have you seen me link someone like you to 'evidence'? I rarely do it so I can sit back and watch people refuse to learn.
It proves my point. You don't even feel yourself worthy of the information. You have no no desire to learn on your own. So why would I take yous seriously? You're a joke.
Mainstream wrote:No, I'm not. Which is funny.
If you think citation means internet link, then rest comfortable with the fact that you think you are correct.
I cited the treaties, the people, the timelines.
You have cited literally nothing. Everything in this thread is just your opinion and nothing more. You cannot say that about what I have stated. That is the difference. I have actually researched this before; you have never researched this before.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], polishyouthgotipbanned