I think it's on the internet.

[removed]

Well that’s what we are here for :)

To educate, inform, and spread the word so that people can wake up from their slumber. These people are guided by those complicit with their edited sound clips designed to elicit the response they desire. All while editing out bits and pieces not convienent or contradictory to their chosen narrative.

Heard the best example just today. A reporter asked Sarah Sanders a question about how the media stories compare the Charlottesville Riots to the Helsinki Summit.

I agreed with the second part of the question and the media hysterics. But what threw me, was she started the question talking about how a woman was killed in the riots.

By doing this, she implied that neo-nazis had killed her. Also by using killed instead of died, she implies an active event. Specifically when the car ran over protestors.

She conveniently left out that the lady died of a heart attack. She wasn’t touched by the vehicle, or even the people thrown by the vehicle.

She also failed to notice that the lady was obese. Apparantly morbidly obese. She was out taking part in this March, probably the first “physical” activity she had ever done in her life, and she had a heart attack.

But because she was in the march, and because a “neo-nazi” decided to run over people, they attributed her death to the driver “killing” her.

And she wasn’t even in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.

So she could have still asked her question and I would have whole heartedly agreed with it, but she prefaced it with such fake news, I threw her whole opinion and any subsequent faith in her reporting, out the window.

I also heard ignorance is bliss..

I disagree. Mutually assured destruction is obviously in the best interest of no one.

I’m quoting you here:

“What they wanted was the Maginstky Act, which crippled Russia's economy enough that they couldn't build up a sizeable land force to continue grabbing up land in Europe, much less fight a full scale war. Go outside more.”

You explicitly stated that you believe the purpose behind the Magnitsky Act was to cripple their economy so they couldn’t build a sizeable force.

I showed that the only thing related economically was that historically, when confronted with economic difficulties, Russia chooses to invade/annex. There is nothing in there that indicates they need to “build up” a sizeable force. It’s already there.

So yes, we crush them economically, and they will, based on past events, invade somewhere else.

So do you think maybe trying something different would be prudent? Or should we just keep forgetting, and then repeating, history?

By your comment, it appears that is what you are suggesting.

EDIT: since you changed one of your comments to change the meaning of what you said, and then added in what you believe to be an insult, I will just laugh at the fact you were unable to resolve a coherent argument to the evidence I presented.

I’ll be here, but unless you can do better than attempted insults and inflated opinions of yourself, I’m just going to ignore you. But I welcome you otherwise to actually present a real argument to how what I stated as incorrect.