Oh, wait
Omimpotent is going to a blame it on spell check...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Somewhat back to topic.

They were talking/covering THAAD on the radio today.

A Korean village objections are primarily about possible pollution of local environment and basic presence of US. They want peace discussion without US forces. What do they think would happen if US forces weren't there or S Korea wasn't supported by the US?

China's objection was in effect of that they view the US gaining an upper hand in middle defense and thus cease to view China's nuclear capability as a deterrent. Yeah, I can see that. So China is having their people boycott S Korea business, travel, etc and seems like that hurting S Korea pretty bad. Just more aspects of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Omni,

Since you didn't quote me specifically like I did you, I am not going to pick through everything to go point by point.

I will say this about your idea of truth. Your idea of truth is individualistic. Not the same for society as a whole. Society as a whole has to agree on certain facts as the truth in order to operate as a lawful society. Your viewpoint of truth deals with individual beliefs. I know this because your narcissism shows through in all your posts. This is fine, I understand. I am trying to let you know where our differences lie. In individual truths you can believe what you want to believe in a free society. Whether in reality it is actually the truth or not is debatable. But in a society we have to agree to certain things, otherwise we cannot exist as a society. I will use a simplified example here. Society believes the earth is round. Their beliefs are due to photos taken from space so they see and the belief is common to most. Yet there may still be a few individualistic types that believe what a few people tell them that the earth is flat. The individual believes what he wants and to him it is real. And to him it's may be the truth even though it is not based on any facts. But it is not the truth as society agrees. This is where we differ. You are keeping it individualistic and I am speaking about society at large.

Your definition of clarity is the same. It is based on an individualistic view and I was speaking in terms of speaking to make others understand and be clear on the same matter. This is where we again differ. When society as a whole is clear and agrees about the same facts it is neither emotional nor is it based on only a belief like an individual might believe. Again, clarity in the terms I was speaking is for the masses not individual as you stated.

The link you keep saying that you posted 5 times does not answer my question. Perhaps you don't understand my question? Or perhaps I am missing something in the link you provided? If you believe it does answer my question, please cut and paste the paragraph in your link that you believe answers my question.

You stated you don't understand "partial" physics and you said it isn't clear to you yet you said it is true. I asked you to prove to me that "partial" physics is true. I have never heard of "partial" physics so I Googled it and I still can't find anything about "partial" physics. So I am asking you prove its true since you said you believe it is.

Omni - Do you mean "partial" physics? Or particle physics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do misspell often if you didn't notice combination of spellcheck and lack of spellcheck.   Also I am a little lazy.

With surface ships being able to refuel while at sea, the US Navy does not need static ports,

I see, but there is a huge glaring issue with both your "truth and clarity"  lets use your example of the truth that the world is round.  200 years ago society as a whole agreed the earth wasn't round.  What about that?  Truth was wrong. 

Your google-fu is quite weak...
par·ti·cle phys·ics
noun
the branch of physics that deals with the properties, relationships, and interactions of subatomic particles.

I do misspell often if you didn't notice combination of spellcheck and lack of spellcheck.   Also I am a little lazy.

Hawaii would be a target no matter if the military was here or not,

Could you imagine if Hawaii was still a kingdom during WW2 ?  Japan would of rolled in here and taken it over for the exzact same reason America stages its military here. Its a jump of point in the pacific.

Totally wrong.

Japan did not have the resources available or foolish enough to launch an invasion of Hawaii.  At least half of its army was tied down in its conquests in Asia.  The Japanese objective in 1941 was to eliminate the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, as to keep the Americans out from interfering with its own imperialist wars of resource accumulation in their part of the World.

Kuleana

You really ought to stop embarrassing yourself in this thread.

Even to a profoundly non-swabbie, this statement is so over the top ignorant.


I really love the emotion driven response I elicited from you.  Thanks for your suggestion.

Kuleana

I really love the emotion driven response I elicited from you.

I do misspell often if you didn't notice combination of spellcheck and lack of spellcheck.   Also I am a little lazy.

Now that is an "emotion driven response" if ever there was one. I'd say "pot, meet kettle", but since pots are deaf, dumb, blind, etc., introducing one to the other would be pointless.

And, yes, the above is an "emotion driven response" from me... not like all your emotionless rational objective "peace-oriented" posts in this thread.

Keep all your personal attacks coming.  People are watching and remembering.
Kuleana

Hawaii would be a target no matter if the military was here or not,

Could you imagine if Hawaii was still a kingdom during WW2 ?  Japan would of rolled in here and taken it over for the exzact same reason America stages its military here. Its a jump of point in the pacific.

Now, let's get back to the question I keep presenting to you that you keep avoiding. Your link does not provide the answer to what percentage does humankind actually affect the climate. And I know that if your link did, you would have no problems posting the paragraph with the answer to try and show me up. So now I have to either assume you don't understand the question or you know there is no answer to the question in the link you keep providing. Thereby negating your climate change fantasy. Are you going to continue to ignore my question or you going to provide the answer from the link you provided or are you finally going to admit you are wrong about your climate fantasies?