Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. looks metallic, thin, wing like and travelling at speed enough to keep up with a commercial plane but not fast enough to over take it. very weird.
  3. Thought this pretty much describes the gist of it (guest starrng John Bolton)..
  4. I would avoid the brown ones, Blue kelp and giant kelp and another one I can't spell.. they are a great seasoning with practice and incredibly not salty, but knowing when to remove it from the stew, casserole or soup takes practice.. it is all carbs and will run the hell out of your stomach and rear end. I need to look at the lava bread?
  5. Absolute brilliance.. I can believe it for sure...
  6. Looks a little bit like a missile launch.
  7. Also a woman died recently as a result of bee sting acupuncture. What ever that is
  8. Vlad the Mighty

    Enter the colorful British defense minister Gavin Williamson who announced that “Putin has made it quite clear that he has hostile intent towards this country. We’ve been seeing the build-up of his forces across the Eastern Front and in terms of what they’re doing over many years now – we have to wake up to that threat and we have to respond to it.”  Then on March 15 Williamson declared that Russia should “go away and shut up,” which illustrated the maturity of the British government’s approach to international affairs.

    "Eastern Front"was a bit of a Freudian slip don't you think 

  9. I have listened to him before actually, and while I didn't have that specific list of things when I first listened to him, I later found out that they were in fact true. It's not a matter of me simply taking some other guy's opinion of him as true, it's a matter of me listening to the words from his own mouth and determining it to be full of complete horse s**t. I'll come back and list out all the links of when he said what later today. Right now I need to go take my dog to the vet (nothing serious). Brb.
  10. That's the local specialty I was talking about, lava bread, it's fantastic. I urge you to try it as soon as you get a chance. Can you actually eat brown kelp though, or is it just a seasoning? In any case it sounds great and I'd be very keen to try it.
  11. maybe they wanted her to pasta away
  12. 1 + 1 = 2, unless you're using exceptionally large values of 1 I can't believe I ever managed to become a programmer.
  13. This video is the real deal. I dreampt something akin to this once.
  14. nope, that logic is only appears sound when you have limited understanding of processes involved. i actually have a trick question i ask when i interview mechanics, 5 120v bulbs in series require 600 volts, how many volts are measured at each bulb when circuit is on. if a guy answers 120 he is wrong, but if you use household logic it would be correct assumption but it is not to anyone with electrical knowledge., they are surprised when they actually measure voltage on 120v bulb terminals and see 600 volts there, not 120, and bulb isn't burning out.
  15. No straw man effort whatsoever on my part, just continuing to point out the phoniness and hypocrisy of religions in general.
  16. Your ass must get jealous of all the s**t that comes outta your mouth. I honestly don't remember seeing you post any clips here. Sorry, but I don't read every single post in the threads that I follow. Must've missed them, though I do watch whatever videos from someone who quotes me. So feel free to quote me with the links to them and I'd be happy to watch them for you. I will admit, that's an interesting take on things. I like the idea of ignoring the labels, and simply looking at the entire spectrum as one big whole. However despite this, you and I have an entirely different approach to all of this, so since you've been so kind as to provide your framework POV, I'll do my best to provide my own. This is a bit long-winded, but since you clearly don't get it I think it's necessary, so here we go... Of all the things you claim above, the #1 glaring difference between you and I is this mentality that government is inherently authoritarian and evil by it's very nature. This just simply isn't the case, and I'll tell you why. Under a Democracy, the government is created and maintained of, by, and for the people. If the government acts against the best interests of the people, then the people have the authority to replace their political leaders with those they so choose through the process of democratic elections. Therefore, rather than the government having an authoritative oppressive thumb over the heads of the people, the people have an authoritative thumb over the heads of the government officials. In essence, the people control the government, not the other way around. Could the government in this kind of system become corrupt and totalitarian? Unfortunately yes, it could. But it is not destined towards this end-goal by nature. Such a totalitarian regime could only arise through a democracy by means of the people themselves electing to lay down their freedoms in the place of government control. Therefore this system of government while not perfect (since no government ever is) is not inherently evil by nature, and so long as the majority of the populace are well educated, and as you've said before on here, the people remain ever-vigilant, they can maintain control over the government, thereby eliminating any potential abuses this said government might have over the everyday people, since it is in fact the people who are the ones ultimately in charge. The only other alternative to this form of government are governments that have an oppressive control over the people (i.e. Communism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Corporatocracy, etc.), or absolutely no central government at all (total anarchy). So, with that being said, any social programs ever implemented by said Democracy that are elected by the people (or indirectly elected by means of politicians who support such legislation) are not oppressive programs put in place against the will of the people. If you wish to argue that any and all government social programs are oppressive by their very nature, then you're essentially arguing for a certain degree of anarchy. An 'every man for himself' type of primitive ideology, that does not make for a healthy society. If every man, woman, and child, has the self-evident inalienable basic human rights of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' then when these rights are threatened, it should be the job of the people to band together to ensure that every man, woman, and child maintains these most basic human rights to the bitter end. And the best way to do that is to unite under one government, and use our democratic process's elective power to create the right programs to protect these rights. Such programs would include: a military for defending the homeland from foreign entities, a public school system for making sure every child has an equal opportunity education which is necessary to properly function in society, a universal healthcare system which ensures it's citizens their right to life without bankrupting them (this one is unfortunately debated against by conservatives, but nonetheless), as well as a myriad of other laws that ensure such liberties. Such would include things like: murder, rape, theft, etc. Essentially it would be the people's job to create and maintain a central government to the extent to that which is necessary for creating a maximally healthy, happy, and functioning society that ensures all of it's citizens have all of their rights fully protected. Do you understand now exactly what my logic here is? All you are doing is complaining about how evil the government is without offering any solutions beyond essentially total anarchy. Government of some form is necessary, so instead of eliminating it, we need to created the best functioning form of it as possible. For the more condensed version of the above, just watch this quick clip from Family Guy (yes, they actually teach us something worth while in that show. Who'd have thought?): Now, I realize you go on in your speech about how specifically bad all of the above I just mentioned is, so before I dissect it I just want to let you know that I primarily explained this as a general response to you from the mindset of someone arguing against all government in general. Yes, but not in a Democracy. ...until said ruler is ousted by the people the next election for making a final decision that the people didn't like or agree with. How is democracy an illusion exactly? The mere fact that elected officials make the rules while in office, does not mean that the people have no say in what rules are put in place. The people elect politicians who represent their ideals, and we can even rally, call, and protest the politicians that are currently in office so as to influence the actions of current political leaders. Democracy works just as it is intended to work. There is no rational basis for the claim that it's merely an 'illusion'. WOW. So you're basically saying you're just straight-up un-American here. What exactly kind of alternative are you suggesting? You've already complained about every other form of government, there's literally none left. Are you an anarchist? Do you seriously believe anarchy to be the most beneficial to society as a whole? It's sad that you think so lowly of everyday people. Granted, I don't doubt that there is an insanely large amount of idiots out there who'll vote for any schmuck who tells them whatever lies they wanna hear (like Donald Trump), but despite this overall naivety of the general populace, democracy is still the greatest form of government, and so long as you properly educate the general populace (which Republicans always want to cut funding for) then the system works fine. You don't have to worry too much about it. Honestly, I find it bitterly ironic that conservatives want to call a democratic socialist like myself 'unpatriotic' and 'un-American' for being a socialist, but then I hear some of you say things like the bolded above ^. How in the hell is that patriotic? Do tell. Good. And they should get tarred and feathered (not literally of course) if their promises don't materialize, that's once again how Democracy works! You really are proving yourself to be anti-democracy here. And btw, this shouldn't just operate this way at the local level. There's no legitimate reason why it shouldn't operate at the national level in this same way as well. Unfortunately yes, it does prevent 'mob rule'. Which by 'mob rule' you mean 'majority rule'. And by 'majority rule' you mean Democracy. So you're right, the Electoral College eliminates Democracy, and should therefore be eliminated. Sigh... I've explained this before, and I guess I'll explain it again... Saying that 'this is a Republic, not a Democracy' is a not so clever phrase that Republicans use to rally support around the idea that this nation was founded on Republican principles and not democratic ones when it really wasn't. All a Republic means is that government officials democratically vote on various things, rather than the people directly voting for whatever it is. Here in America, we have both a Republic and a Democracy. We the people directly vote for politicians, who then indirectly vote for us on our behalf. It's nonsensical to say: "This is a Republic, not a Democracy." It's like looking at a salad with lettuce and carrots in it, and saying: "This is made of lettuce, not carrots!" Uh, no dips**t, it's made of both. It's a salad. "We the People" are the 'mob'. You can't just label the people something else just so you can dismiss them. It's like if I were to be hiding a butt ton of illegal drugs under my bed, and the cops come in and find it so I say "those aren't drugs, they're fun plants, so they don't count." Sorry, but that's just not how it works. Lol, I wouldn't boast so heavily there, cause you aren't saying anything I haven't heard before. It's not that complex. Sovereignty is established by the people in power. In a Monarchy, they (typically) establish and justify their sovereignty by way of 'divine right', because it is the king who has total power. In an Democracy however, the people are the ones in power, and so they are the ones that establish sovereignty. So when it says "We the People", it's basically saying that "by the power of the people, we establish sovereignty over this land." It couldn't be any more clear, this nation is a Democracy (and yes, also a Republic, don't flip your wig over it) created and sustained of, by, and for the people. It's as plain as day. Unfortunately that was indeed the case. Thankfully that's not the case anymore. First of all, the Constitution also doesn't directly say that the government can't burn heretics at the stake, it didn't originally say that slavery was illegal, or that women have equal rights to that of men, etc. The Constitution whether you like it or not is meant to be an open and moldable document. It's meant to adapt to the times, not get stuck in an irrelevant-to-today past. That would just set us up to be stuck in a governmental dark ages for years to come. You conservatives act as if the Constitution is like the Bible, never meant to be altered or changed at any point EVER, which again, is the exact same mentality that brought us the thousand years of the dark ages of Christianity. The Constitution isn't set in stone. That's why there are amendments to the Constitution in the first place. Yes, these amendments are damn bloody difficult to pass (which they should be), but it isn't impossible. The reason why I support the current constitutional amendments put in place still today is simply because those amendments to the Constitution are correct, not because they simply are a part of the Constitution and should therefore never be changed simply because it's written there. I for one personally would like to add another Constitutional amendment that gets big money out of politics, but that gets into a separate topic entirely. Second, at the time the Constitution was setup, it was a different world with different words that had different meanings that do not translate perfectly into American English as it exists today. I mean, we're talking about a document that's over 200 years old here. Words change over time. They can have various meanings, and those meanings are often vague even today. The Constitution setup a very specific type of government (a Federal Presidential Republic with a Bicameral Legislature) that today is considered "a Liberal Democracy" as are other types of government. (for example: non-presidential republics, republics with purely symbolic presidents, constitutional monarchies, etc.) Including those like the UK with implicit as opposed to explicit Constitutions, Republics with Unicameral Legislature, non-Federalist Republics, etc. etc. At the time of the Constitution's writing, democracy generally meant a direct Athenian-style democracy, unlimited by any sort of constitution. Today, when we say 'democracy', we don't mean "citizens gather in a public place and use shards of broken pottery to vote on anything and everything, including ostracizing (or worse) any other citizen without a trial, presumption of innocence, any other legal rights, or an appeals process, etc. etc." Usually, we prefix "democracy" with (lower-case l) "liberal", which is roughly the same thing as what the 18th century liberals like US founders, the British Whig party (which also included thinkers now considered "conservative" in the Anglo-American tradition, like Edmund Burke), and ethical/legal philosophers like Kant (who also disparaged what he called democracy, but advocated a system that, again, would today be described as a "liberal democracy") meant when they said "Constitutional Republic" or "Constitutional Monarchy". So at the end of the day, the Constitution is not perfect or set in stone, by today's standards this is a 'democracy', and words change over time. What was said and done then, does not perfectly equate to how things are and/or should be said and done now today. An inspiring speech at the end, but I'll disregard that since most of what you've brought up here I've already addressed. I'll I'd like to add, is that you seem to have a hint of 'American Exceptionalism' sprinkled in there, to which I disagree. Right-wingers often call me unpatriotic to not constantly stroke our own ego by calling us the 'greatest country in the world', but the fact is we aren't. There's no statistical basis for the claim that America is the greatest country on Earth. We have the largest military by about a mile and a half, but that's about it. That doesn't mean we're great, that just means we're powerful. I don't personally think that America should constantly try and act like we're better than everyone else. I take a more egalitarian stand. That's what helps unite us a bit more on the global stage. Works slowly but steadily towards a path to world peace. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth here. I never once denied that. I fully agree with you. However tax dollars are not a part of someone's 'individual wealth', they are automatically deducted percentages of our wealth that go towards the government so as to help pay for various programs. That's not the same as telling someone what they can or cannot invest in with their own private money. While taxes are essentially earned portions of your labor, those portions are not yours, they are automatically set aside and owned by the government whether you properly supply them with it or illegal withhold it for yourself. In the end, it's still 'theirs', so they aren't dictating a damn thing in regards to your personal private investments. I don't remember you ever quoting Washington here, but whatever... Anyway, I find it interesting that you finally admit taxes to be a form of socialism, and that at least in this sense, socialism is a good thing. I guess this means we're actually getting somewhere. First of all, 50% for whom? You're pulling that number out of your ass and asserting it to be an actual policy position from the left, as if we just want a 50% flat tax or something. That's absolute horse crap. No one on the left is suggesting that. Phew, this gets into crunching numbers and I'm already rather tired of writing all this, so I'll try and keep things as simple here as possible... Currently, the top 0.1% of the people in this nation own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 99.9% of US citizens. I for one (and many other of my Democratic Socialist colleagues) think that is absurd. We could in fact tax them 50% or more, and they'd still be above and beyond fabulously wealthy. There's no logical reason for them to have that much wealth while millions of hardworking Americans live in abject poverty. We are denied basic healthcare as a right, not a privilege, a living wage despite working full time, outrageous tuition costs for colleges and universities while other nations provide a higher education for free like we do with public education on up through high school. There are numerous separate issues such as this where Americans are more impoverished then most other hardworking people in other modern 1st world nations. That's because we have a far-right conservative legislature (this includes both parties, not just the GOP) that continues to shrink the middle class by giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals all while refusing to address the core issues that everyday Americans are facing. Bottom line is, it's not in the least bit unreasonable to suggest that the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes (since they have more) while the poorest Americans should pay less (since they have less). That's literally all we're suggesting here. Is that really such an outrageous proposal? Really? I realize that none of this ^ is going to do one lick of good by me just telling you this, since this relies on sitting down and crunching the actual numbers to make this work. I could do that for you here as I've done so myself, but I'm getting quite tired of writing all this, and you'd likely reject it even if the math works. So yeah, that's that. Once again, it's a numbers game. Although, I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'our wealth.' Who's wealth? The American people's? The US government's? The very few rich cucks who basically own the government? Who? Lastly, I've already explained how this doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, so yeah, nuff said. Well, my intent is to insure that people don't die or go bankrupt due to lack of medical care simply because they don't have enough money. I mean do you realy deserve a death sentence simply for being poor? My intent is to insure that those who work full time are able to pay for their basic living expenses. Should someone who works their butt off in a full time job not be able to put food on the table for their kids, or even pay the rent? My intent is to insure that anyone who is academically capable of going to college is also financially capable of going to college. Should someone who's brilliant be denied a higher education simply because they were born to a poor family? Should that person have to live under the constant overbearing pressure of immense college debt for literally decades to come, again, simply because they were born to a poor family? If these ^ things make me a Socialist, then yes, I'm a Socialist. I'm a Socialist and proud. ALL governments exist to redistribute individual wealth, it's just a matter of how much and where to. It's called taxes, and whether you like the 'socialist' label or not, that's just simply what it is. I fully agree. If you think we want an equal outcome, then you have the wrong idea of what we're suggesting. Literally all we're asking for is equal opportunity. When we support free public college, we're offering people the equal opportunity to get an education regardless of their parents financial situation. That doesn't mean everyone is going to have the exact same outcome, or that everyone even has to go to college, just that you can if you so chose. When we support Medicare for all single-payer healthcare, we're offering people the equal opportunity to have their medical conditions treated regardless of their finances. That doesn't mean everyone gets treated in the exact same way, as I'm not at all against private health insurance for those who can afford something better if they so chose. Just for those who can't afford any insurance, they shouldn't have to die or go sick simply because they haven't enough money in the bank. When we support a living wage as the minimum wage, we're supporting everyone having the equal opportunity to be able to pay their basic living expenses if they work full time. We're not talking a lavish and luxurious lifestyle here, just enough for food and keeping the lights on. Maybe a one bedroom apartment or something. That's it. It doesn't mean they have to stay in that job for the rest of their lives, and given that numerous other countries (like Australia for instance) already have a living wage, people are more than willing to work harder and get an education so they can end up living even more financially secure in the future. Literally every one of our policy positions center around providing an equal opportunity to ALL Americans, not just those who happen to already be wealthy or at the very least financially secure. If you honestly think that I'm advocating for a universal flat wage or something, then think again. That's even more extreme then most communist countries. That's not in the least bit what I'm advocating for. This is absolute nonsense. Australia, Canada, most countries in Europe; they all are intrinsically socialistic in the ways I just described, and have been that way for a long time. If it truly was an incentive killer, then they'd all be third-world countries by now, but they're not. Again, I'm not advocating for minimum wage jobs to be able to provide you with a lavish lifestyle by any means. I'm simply advocating for you to be able to keep food in the fridge and the lights on. I'm not advocating for everyone to get the exact same medical care. I'm just advocating that those who don't have the money can still have their basic needs treated. And what more of an incentive killer is there then denying someone who's fully intellectually capable of going to college the right to do so simply because they can't afford it? This is just the kind of nonsense that those multi-billion dollar cucks on Fox News force feed into your heads so that you end up acting against your own best interests. And you'll likely cite Communist countries as the examples of this, not the kind of Socialist countries to which I'm referring to. I am not in any way shape or form advocating against that. In fact, I'm arguing for that. Someone who works a full time job should be able to make enough money to get ahead, but here in America they can't. Someone who works their but off in school to get a better job shouldn't have to live paycheck to paycheck worrying about any unforeseen medical expenses if they pop up because so much of their money is being poured into paying off massive student loan debt. Of course people should be able to prosper off of their own effort. That's exactly what I'm advocating for! But they can't do that if they aren't provided the necessary tools that even give them a chance to do so. That's what I mean when I say I support Socialism. It's hardly the big bad evil killing machine you keep wanting to paint it as. And with that, I am finally done...
  17. My husband says I glow in the dark.
  18. my only friend thee know the light that shines within grows stronger at night
  19. Yeah, I don’t feel Greer is doing this for the money. He’s serious.
  20. Nikola Tesla & John Trump.The legend-tellers suggest that Donald’s uncle John George Trump, who was a very well-known scientist and inventor, oversaw the examination of famous engineer Nikola Tesla’s notes after his death.Serbian-born Tesla moved to the US in 1891 was famed for his reputation as a “mad scientist”.Tesla was also well-known in his later years for exploring theoretical subjects, and even made very early pronouncements into the possibility of wireless connectivity.He apparently looked into fantastic theories such as free energy, antigravity, invisibility, and most importantly time travel.Trump spent three days by himself looking into the notes before concluding there was nothing of any significance.His report read: “(Tesla’s) thoughts and efforts during at least the past 15 years were primarily of a speculative, philosophical, and somewhat promotional character”.Conspiracy theorists claim Trump found theoretical designs for a time travelling machine. Donald Titor.John G. Trump spent a lot of time with his nephew Donald before he died in 1985.In interviews Donald Trump regularly brought up his “uncle John” and references his warning over nuclear weapons and the damage they may cause.During one such interview he cryptically said: “My uncle used to tell me about nuclear before nuclear was nuclear”.He told the Boston Globe: “He would tell me, ‘There are things that are happening that could be potentially so bad for the world in terms of weaponry.”Trump told the Times that his uncle “would tell me many years ago about the power of weapons someday, that the destructive force of these weapons would be so massive, that it’s going to be a scary world.”What is strange about the warnings is that by the time Donald Trump was born in 1946, the US already owned and used nuclear weapons.Trump also spoke about his dislike of nuclear weapons saying, “I hate nuclear more than any. My uncle was a professor was at M.I.T., used to tell me about nuclear.“Can I be honest with you? It’s going to happen, anyway. It’s going to happen anyway. It’s only a question of time…”Despite all John Trump’s scientific contributions, including methods for curing cancer, Donald appears to mostly speak about his uncle’s warnings of nuclear war.Many have cited John Trump’s foresight as proof that he might have seen John Titor’s future ravaged by nuclear war and government corruption.Donald Trump is also well-known for occasionally using pseudonyms such as John Miller and John Barron, using his middle as a first name.But, according to the theory, his third and less well-known identity was John Titor. John Titor.In 2000 an online forum came alive with the story of John Titor, who claimed to be a soldier from 2036, and lived in a world destroyed by war and government corruption.He offered some helpful tips on what the future had in store and suddenly vanished and after many of the predictions did not come true, he was written off as a hoax.The legend goes that after John Trump had mastered time travel, Donald Trump journeyed to the future under the name John Titor.After witnessing the destruction he returned to our time and subtly changed the future through the butterfly effect by giving humanity hints of what was to come.But try as he might, Trump was unable to totally change the earth’s progression towards nuclear war brought on by ISIS and Islamic radicalisation, according to the wild theory.So using his time travelling ability, Trump amassed a fortune with his family, and began running for president of the United States to allow himself to truly change the future.Now that Trump is about to become the US president he will be able to truly change the world and avert the nuclear destruction planned for the world.President Donald Trump.According to the conspiracy, there are quite a few similarities between the President and John Titor.In Titor’s posts, he was incredibly rude and aggressive towards those who challenged him.In one post he wrote: “Perhaps I should let you all in on a little secret. No one likes you in the future. This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically ignorant sheep.”Donald Trump also seems to have a similar flare for insulting his critics and opponents and in one speech in Las Vegas in 2011 he said, “Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people.”And Trump has been outspoken in claiming that he is more knowledgable about the United States’ enemies than top officials.In 2015 the incoming president said during a campaign speech: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me”.Trump has been mocked for his comment, but his claims are believed to back up the idea that he may know more about the future of ISIS than top US officials.Trump is now attempting to avert the future, by becoming president and dramatically altering the world's timeline by tackling the enemies which could potentially bring humanity to destruction.
  21. What was he planning to do with the wheelie bin at the end? You can imagine the fun you could have with that.
  22. Richard Dolan is one I like though I don't buy everything he says either....The way I look at this alien/earth interaction stuff especially when it comes to those who espouse this stuff either through books or online is that they are only out for the almighty dollar! Having said that with the amount of hoaxing and downright sleight of hand produced by many of the people in the current field of Ufology who can you take serious anymore?
  23. Not so much me but the mrs I told her but she don't believe me her jeans have a tiny rip in them can anyone else spot it? Oh yeah and I got me shorts on
  24. People who don't know how to do it properly.
  25. Are these podcasts available on the iOS Podcast app?
  1. Load more activity