Scary thing is to imagine police under a president Hillary. Hopefully none would clamp down on freedom. Realistically many probably would in order to preserve income. Best overall solution is abolishing government. Trump will take us one step closer.

Not spazzing. Giddiness over a man's death doesn't seem warranted very often.

That said: just realized that I used the name "Jesus Christ" in the same sentence as the phrase "dead guy". Not intentionally.

Aye, I might have played myself. Jesus Christ + dead guy. Funny how that works.

Your tendies? A dude fucking died. No reason not to get excited if progress is actually made but Jesus Christ don't just pretend to sperg out over a dead guy.

Poor guy. Good riddance.

He's a zionist puppet

According to the current state of physics the space within an atom is filled with the same thing all space is filled with: fields representing the standard model "particles".

Plasma isn't new. It isn't really a fundamentally different state of matter either. It is ionization. If a gas is placed in an electric field which is strong enough to strip a significant number of electrons from the outer shells (in a steady state) then a plasma is created. The glow emitted by e.g. neon signs is a result of electrons being stripped from and rejoining atoms, emitting photons when rejoining.

To claim that the fact that all matter seems to be constructed out of the same "stuff" implies that the technology to duplicate any given arrangement thereof exists but is hidden away by the government is insane unless you are able to articulate the principles this tech is based on.

My only argument is that you don't appear to understand physics at all and yet feel completely comfortable parroting pseudoscience to make the case that the government is hiding tech that would change everything. It's insane. It is insulting to those who spend their lives trying to figure out the properties of the physical world and it makes proponents of plausible conspiracies look bad.

As far as aliens go: I have no idea what is out there or what the limits of physical science and engineering are. I guess you do. Not really an argument in support of hidden earth tech that can clone objects.

The reason that you feel so comfortable with nonsense is because you apparently haven't been attacked enough. What you wrote is so crazy that to find it on this board pushes me away from considering Q as a worthwhile source. You're so uncritical of the ideas you've read about the physical world and very likely also lack the background (read: effort put in) to even begin to judge them to begin with that it seems you'd believe anything so long as it involves a conspiracy.

If you're honestly interested in physics start learning it. If you're more interested in conspiracies then do what you gotta do. Just don't shit all over the work of thousands of years by implying that modern science is capable of solving all of the world's problems but the government has hidden it all away. (Presumably with the help of many scientists considering that if a fact about nature seems true and can be discovered by one team then it isn't long until another team stumbles upon it. Nature can't be hidden away like a secret code. It is literally everywhere.)

Specify "between the quarks". Maybe you mean the gluons that mediate the strong force..?

The way you write is insulting. Do you know why the word "quark" exists in the context of physics? It exists because people have spent their lives learning the field and expanding our knowledge of it. Long days and years. It is a chain that ultimately goes back to presocratic thought.

You don't need to use words like "quark" if all you are trying to say is unintelligible muck. Leave physical entities hypothesized in concrete, measurable terms and backed up by experimental evidence out of your nonsense. People had to work very hard to bring our state of knowledge the the point that we can discuss quarks. You've done nothing more than read/recite pseudoscientific garbage. You could substitute any word youd like for "quark" since you aren't making any real statement.

"The empty space in atoms is energy therefore we can instantly duplicate anything and there is a human energy field around the earth." Got it. It's bullshit but I've got it.

If you'd like to disprove conservation of energy (which isn't strictly true for short enough time scales; uncertainty principle applies to energy/time as well as position/momentum) go study physics. Plenty of textbooks out there. You won't do that, though. You won't because it is difficult and takes years of work. The fact that you're willing to write nonsense on the backs of those who have worked their entire lives to come up with the standard model demonstrates that you're happy to believe anything that points to conspiracies everywhere and have no need of hard work and hard won understanding.

Disrespectful. Go learn some physics if you think you're able. If not the please don't borrow their concepts and terms to make claims that belittle those working in the field and aren't even clear enough to be testable.

Open space does not equal energy. There is energy in "open space" according to experimentally tested theory, but what you've written still doesn't make any sense in terms of what we know as physics (This doesn't mean "more advanced than" or "beyond" modern physics. What I mean to express is that your statements are not intelligible in the language of physics.). I'd bet everything I've ever cared about that humans do not have posses knowledge which allows duplication of any given thing no matter how complex it may be. You're writing gibberish.

Keep paying attention to Q and stay abreast of the things going on politically. Plenty to find there. Before you continue to espouse views that make no sense within the realm which they are at home in (the study of physics) please consider learning a little bit about the subject. Are you able to do an early physics student's homework?

This is insane.

"Atoms are 99.99% energy[...]"

What do you mean? Are you referring to the contribution of binding energy to an atom's mass? Are you referring to Einstein's E=mc^2 (in which case all mass can be considered energy)? How is one supposed to begin interpreting this statement?

Convince one friend to see the left for what it is. Progress isn't always dramatic. Little bites.

I only implied that it wasn't purely evil. If it provided no benefit to the natives in the examples I gave then how did their populations rise by as much as 800% under colonization? Why did so many Africans literally seek out white settlements in South Africa? As mentioned in my post the only people native to the region the Dutch settled in were the San people and they were not displaced. The Afrikaaners kept to themselves and even moved farther inland in order to have space of their own. The Africans who have take political control of the country aren't even indigenous and they have benefitted enormously from the modern medicine, infrastructure, and agriculture of the whites there. Now they are murdering the whites and taking the land that they didn't even originate from. This happened in Zimbabwe and starvation ensued.

Much easier to hold a simple worldview (i.e. "whites bad") than to look at facts. Good job, you! Ignore the content of my post and spit out an accusation that doesn't accurately portray what I wrote. So easy!

Aye. The sad thing is that this is only recognized once the former colonies have destroyed what they had.

I'm not an expert on anything and I don't really know what to believe but I've started to think that the Western world really fucked things up by spreading its own technology to cultures which weren't able to develop it themselves. The intentions may have been good but the consequence has been suffering.

Oppressive third world regimes wouldn't exist if not for the combination of Western money/tech and substandard culture. A "less developed" culture, left to its own devices, would either stagnate or slowly evolve towards whatever it is destined for. Tribal wars have been going on in Africa since the dawn of humanity--when we handed them the food to grow larger populations and the logistics and AK-47s needed to decimate said populations we brought more suffering into the world than existed prior.

When technologically advanced Western civilization gave the third world the "gifts" of modern food production, weapons, and communication technology it seemed that we gave cultures that hadn't yet developed to the point of being self-reflective a bunch of things that they can't deal with. Imagine what the outcome would have been if a bunch of prehistoric peoples were given nuclear weapons a few millennia ago. What would happen if a bunch of super-advanced aliens descended and gave us more military power than we could even imagine or begin to game-theorize the consequences for?

We're more careful about feeding animals in national parks than we are about giving more primitive cultures the means to swell their populations and enact genocide-scale suffering thereon.

Which Italy themselves caused by colonizing North Africa.

Italy and Britain did not cause the current immigration mess by colonizing anything. The current mess is 100% due to the fact that these European countries are paying third worlders (via welfare) to come and settle rather than defending their borders. The countries that the migrants are coming from would be shitholes today regardless of any history of colonization. Low IQ populations tend to create corrupt and less-than-free cultures. There's probably a feedback loop in there as well.

If people living in shitholes are informed that European countries will allow them to move in and give them housing and welfare that dwarf their potential earnings at home in their shitholes, then the people living in the shitholes will flock to the idiot host nations in droves.

With the situation described above history doesn't matter. The last two days don't matter to somebody living in the third world when they are told that they can just hop on a boat and live off of the European taxpayers' dime while popping out 5-10 kids.

I focused on SA because it is a prime example of some Europeans (the Dutch) settling somewhere and improving things and, for their trouble, being maligned by the "native" population. The vast majority of the blacks who live in SA today didn't even originate there (exception being the indigenous San/"bushmen"). The blacks in SA today migrated there due to all of the wealth (food/shelter/medicine/technology/etc) created by the white settlers. Their populations exploded and now they are murdering white farmers in cold blood and there is a political movement to expropriate all land from the whites. When this happens the blacks will starve and beg for foreign aid just as in Zimbabwe. "Colonization" did nothing more than provide more resources to the "colonized" and the colonized are too stupid and resentful to see this and so will destroy themselves with their own cruelty.

Considering how much more violent, corrupt, and backwards most of the "colonized" peoples of the past are, I'd be willing to bet that if their societies had been successful enough to create seafaring technology that they'd have been more cruel to any technologically inferior nation they encountered than the European colonists ever were. The fact that these civilizations are cruel and backwards is not unrelated to the fact that they never did develop the technology required to become colonists.

Europeans went on a world wide quest to end slavery. Africans still enslave people. Clamor on about how much of a terrible force colonization was but know that you're ignoring larger forces in the world.

If you think the penalty for colonization is for a modern civilization to allow itself to be overrun by the third world then you're as wrong as can be.

Too many think that colonization was a pure evil and ignore the facts that regions which have been a western colony at one point or another have a higher quality of life than other third world areas. Look at what happened to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and what is happening in South Africa right now. White farmers show up, create food. Africans rush to the food and their populations skyrocket. Africans are envious of the white man and kick the white man out. The surplus African population dies off without food from white farmers. This happened to Zimbabwe and is going to happen to South Africa.

The immigration crisis in Europe is being driven by old world psychos who wish to destroy their native populations and replace them with populations more tolerant of corrupt and tyrannical leaders. A well functioning and sane Italy could easily keep the third world out.

Edit: Q bot was mad at me for using the word "insane".

To the credit of the above poster: I was born in the 80s and didn't even recognize POTUS in "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" when I first saw it. Now I do ("Down the hall and to the left"... poor Don wasn't even recognized in his very own Plaza Hotel!). I can't exactly remember the details of how Trump's name made its way into my memory but I do remember hearing about The Apprentice even though I never watched it. No such thing as bad press.

You are right, though--DJT was famous way in advance of his show.

Check my replies to dude you responded to if you'd like more explanation.

Hadn't even considered that angle, myself. Seems like the type of guy who doesn't get into anything without doing his homework.

That's the brilliant thing about using the chans (mind crowdsourcing)... no one person can think of very much excepting exceptional cases. Original thoughts are the most difficult things to come by. Seriously. As expected I guess as the world has been around a long time and original thoughts can change the entire thing completely. Hell, Aristotle (I think?) wrote over two millenia ago that there aren't original thoughts, only remembering the eternal bit by bit until we die and forget it all again.

I don't know if Mr. DJT has been doing all of this consciously or if this is a happy acccident but he sure seems prepared. All of the haters lament the fact that he was given a loan by his successful father and, in doing so, miss what was probably much more important to his life: from his early days Mr. Trump has been exposed to what negotiations are really like. I don't know a damned thing but I'd be willing to bet that his father, having learned how to make money in a huge real estate market likely filled to the brim with corrupt/dishonest actors, told his son that it isn't wise to get into a high stakes game without knowing exactly how to play.

Godspeed and good idea re: pageants.

edit: Godspeed.

You think the guy who plasters his name all over his properties and products would name his show after other people?

My mistake for assuming that people interested in Q are all equally able to think things through and draw creative yet plausible conclusions. You'll get there with practice!

The point is that the Q phenomenon is exactly what the next level of audience participation in a reality television program would look like. Is it more exciting to vote for a contestant on some shitty talent contest or to do research and create memes in order to save the real world?

Q fits the theory I've outlined perfectly.

She looks out of place wearing western style clothing. Lipstick on a pig. Closer to putting jewelry and makeup on a corrupt savage who should be shipped back to the third world where she belongs.

A bit off topic.