CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do You Respect The Charleston Shooter?
I respect people who stand up for what they believe in and exectute their goals effectively, intstead of simply indulging in the idea from an internal stance.
war is a different thing entirely, as it becomes (another) existential question for the society at large.
There is generally a first aggressor in war. Both sides can't be defending their existence in a war. One side must threaten the other's existence first. Whether the perceived threat is real or not is obviously up to interpretation.
did the jews face an existential threat from the germans?
were the german's " not sure" why they were exterminating the jews?
clearly one side is the aggressor, and just as clearly one side is being being exterminated.
the ONLY just side in that war was the side of the jews, who were facing extinction.
Technically, the Germans were facing extinction. The Treaty of Versailles was destroying their country. They had no way to pay reparations. Inflation had increased by trillion-folds. Yes. 10^12.
Hitler used propaganda to blame the Parliament (which he burned down) and the Jews (which he exterminated). He also blamed Europe and we all saw how that turned out.
Not sure how any of this supports your original assertion: "there is NO justification in killing someone over some perception of the world based on nothing more than hate and fear."
Not trying to use this as an attack or anything, but I am going to go straight for the gold and prove Godwin's Law right off the bat: Do you respect Hitler (or, for that matter, any dictator) for the same reasons?
Yes I do actually, and I've stated that numerous times. I admire him and yearn for such power (though I wouldn't use it to kill of particular races, I would rather profit off such power).
Why would you admire Hitler? He was a pussy who failed and lost the war. As much as I hate communism one person who I do admire is Stalin. No that's what I call power and he was in the long run a winner.
Hitler has more notoriety than Stalin. He created a regime (and symbol) that will forever be known (unlike Stalin). MLK didn't win the war on racism but he still is greatly respected; and Newton never gave a fully accurate theory of gravity, yet, he is still widely appreciated... Soo, what's your point as to how someone not reaching their 'end-goal' somehow demeans their caliber?
Because there is not reason to respect someone who failed completely. Stalin was a far better leader than Hitler as well. Hitler may have had more notoriety than Stalin but that's because people are idiots so talk about people more who are less deserving of notoriety than others. For example Audrey Hepburn clearly was much better than Marilyn Monroe but Marilyn is still much more talked about and well known. Does that mean she was better than Audrey? No. Also MLK did win because he stopped segregation.
I agree with everything you said short of your comment on MLK. His goals were far more than to just stop segregation. He fought for improved workers rights, for example: something that he saw little success in. He fought for improved income equality, which he also did not succeed in. He fought for equality of African Americans, and though he saw an end to legal segregation, he did not see his dreams fully realized.
Huh? Did I not just clearly state that my goal would be profit? Wiping out an entire race would be counterproductive to my profitable goals... Obviously.
Well, actually it wouldn't be counterproductive. In fact it would be the better way to do it. The problem with wealth is keeping it. If you steal a bunch of possessions you can become rich. If you steal those possessions from a group of people then wipe them out you don't have to be afraid of keeping it since no one will be able to claim rights to it. Now, you have to worry about the people of other races, but they now know you want to murder people, so they won't speak up. So, you can be very productive with your plan to eliminate a race.
My proposition is in a more 'modern' sense. For example, the govt. and lottery tickets, if it weren't for the poor the lottery ticket industry wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry.
Or a more intuitive example: facilities housing cheap products allocated to the poor (e.g. good will, liquor store, etc.).
---
Also, I have never on this site gave an implication that I was racist. I stated that I admire Hitler, but not for his ideology, rather his power and control that he fostered. Same with MLK.
Furthermore, I am not even white, I am Latino (Hitler would have killed me off too), and I don't look at people as 'different races', more like different people. I don't bother much with cultural-ethnic-racial criticizing and things of that sort as it is entirely meaningless.
Though, if I had the power, I would allow for human hunting and consumption given my view towards wildlife. And I would kill every farmer, factory worker, corp. employee(r), all in the same fashion they kill innocent animals (e.g. slicing their throats open and hanging them upside down, etc.). And I would also set up factories and farms for human cattle- this is stricty designated towards the individuals that play a role in meat manufacturing and farming.
I have been diagnosed with psychopathy- this has nothing to do with my rational empirical view of the hypocritical animal cruelty that manifests throughout the globe.
My psychologist. And it was psychopathy not ASPD. I understand psychopathy carries certain attributes that are manifested in ASPD, but the two conditions are not interchangeably related.
Psychopathy is not an officially recognised mental illness and whether it is distinct from ASPD is debateable. I guess you think that psychopathy is cool. They are not like in the movies. There is no relationship between psychopathy and intelligent and mainly are so impulsive that they could never achieve what you count as greatness (i.e. working to make lots of money).
Never have I implied that it is cool. Since t is commonly misconstrued I sometimes like to fit the false narrative (if I tell someone I am a psychopath they'll think that means I am crazy, so I'll play along (though, most girls I tell often times find it (the false narrative) to be a turn on).
A lot of 'successful' psycho/sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent (e.g. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, etc.).
Also my deviant behavior (which is mainly a sexual addiction) is controlled (I have no urge to rape). The [sexual] thoughts may be impulsive, and my sexual signals may not go unnoticed, but it is a good thing that I'm not creepy and ugly and my sexual expressions are often reciprocated by the stimuli (female) that gave rise to so.
Now who is the "simple" one? You aren't any better for wiping out a group of people not based on prejudice. Just because I don't know the criteria you will use to justify your mass killing doesn't make my mass killing prediction bad. You brought up race, and you did it to hide your intentions.
You are the one who invoked race as my end-goal even after I stated it wasn't, then proceeded to call me a liar.
And you've just manifested exactly the type of hypocrisy and irrationality I addressed in my last post. You seem to think its okay for mass killings involving different animals, but, inversely, when there's an intraspecific mass killing it then becomes 'bad'?
You are the one who invoked race as my end-goal even after I stated it wasn't, then proceeded to call me a liar.
The point is that it doesn't matter if it was race or not. Why is it ok that it isn't based on prejudice? Hitler was not bad because he killed Jews, he was bad because he rounded up a bunch of people and killed them. It doesn't matter that it was based on race. You threw out the term race to hide your intention to kill a bunch of people. Then you presented a false dichotomy to hide your true intentions. You specifically stated that you would rather profit than kill people, but that was a lie.
And you've just manifested exactly the type of hypocrisy and irrationality I addressed in my last post.You seem to think its okay for mass killings involving different animals, but, inversely, when there's an intraspecific mass killing it then becomes 'bad'?
But, you have failed to address the hypocrisy where it is bad to kill animals, but it becomes good when it is humans.
Hitler was not bad because he killed Jews, he was bad because he rounded up a bunch of people and killed them. It doesn't matter that it was based on race.
It does matter the intention behind the genocide. If I kill a large group of ISIS members for being dynamic terrorists, am I just as bad as if killed a bunch Asians (Chinese) for simply being born in China?
But, you have failed to address the hypocrisy where it is bad to kill animals, but it becomes good when it is humans.
I am equilibrating the manifestation of these heinous acts to eliminate the hypocrisy. If you wouldn't kill a human (a sentient entity), then don't kill a cow (another sentient entity). (I use 'sentient' since that seems to be the 'prevalent' factor for determining a creature's 'right to life'.)
It does matter the intention behind the genocide. If I kill a large group of ISIS members for being dynamic terrorists, am I just as bad as if killed a bunch Asians (Chinese) for simply being born in China?
You specifically mentioned you wanted power for profit. You hid your genocidal ways and I called you out on it. If you claim that you don't want to kill people and just make profit, then it doesn't matter who you kill if you commit genocide.
I am equilibrating the manifestation of these heinous acts to eliminate the hypocrisy.
Committing hypocritical acts to combat hypocrisy is strange.
If you wouldn't kill a human (a sentient entity), then don't kill a cow (another sentient entity).
No one believes that including you. You have stated that you wouldn't kill a cow, but you are perfectly fine with killing a human.
(I use 'sentient' since that seems to be the 'prevalent' factor for determining a creature's 'right to life'.)
I won't address your use of the word sentient. You will probably just lie and use semantics to cover yourself.
You specifically mentioned you wanted power for profit. You hid your genocidal ways and I called you out on it.
Perhaps you should go back and check, I admitted to such thinking without your inquiry. I just threw that out there but I still stand with my initial statement concerning profit still stands- the equilibration was an aside. Committing hypocritical acts to combat hypocrisy is strange.
Point out the hypocrisy in condoning human hunting and consumption- I might add that, if I could, I would illegalize both.
No one believes that including you. You have stated that you wouldn't kill a cow, but you are perfectly fine with killing a human.
You're not understanding, I will kill a human that will kill another animal. If a human does not commit such acts, then their life will be spared.
I won't address your use of the word sentient. You will probably just lie and use semantics to cover yourself
If my use semantics works logically then the problem would be with you. Somewhere in this debate 'Curoc[sic]' invoked sentient entities having a right to life over non-sentient entities- what he failed to realize is farm animals, etc., are sentient creatures.
Perhaps you should go back and check, I admitted to such thinking without your inquiry. I just threw that out there but I still stand with my initial statement concerning profit still stands- the equilibration was an aside.
You want to kill people as well. I wanted to point out that you would kill people as well. You are only focusing on the semantics that you won't do it based on race.
Point out the hypocrisy in condoning human hunting and consumption- I might add that, if I could, I would illegalize both.
You are against hunting and consumption, hence the hypocrisy. Except, you said you would legalize it if you were in power.
You're not understanding, I will kill a human that will kill another animal. If a human does not commit such acts, then their life will be spared.
You have a reason to kill humans. That doesn't make you any better than humans who kill animals. They have a reason too. They spare animals too.
If my use semantics works logically then the problem would be with you.
I agree 100%, but since it doesn't work logically with your arguments my statement is accurate.
Somewhere in this debate 'Curoc[sic]' invoked sentient entities having a right to life over non-sentient entities- what he failed to realize is farm animals, etc., are sentient creatures.
How does my statement that I won't discuss your use of the word sentient lead you to discuss your use of the word sentient?
Different species are intelligent in different ways. Pigs are considered to be highly intelligent, yet, I am sure you wouldn't turn down a bacon (or some other pork-based commodity) sandwich?
I think you left the debate last time we argued about this. In what way do you define intelligent to mean that a pig is equally as intelligent as us? If there is no scale of intelligence, in which some are more intelligent than others, why do you brag that you are so intelligent?
You are conflating two separate views and contorting my statement (whether it be intentional or otherwise).
In what way do you define intelligent to mean that a pig is equally as intelligent as us?
I said different species are intelligent in different ways.
If there is no scale of intelligence, in which some are more intelligent than others, why do you brag that you are so intelligent?
Intraspecific intelligence is objectively measurable. My IQ scores are far beyond average and an IQ test is one medium for measuring certain facets of intelligence (e.g. inductive reasoning, appreciation of vocabulary, mathematical logic, etc.), and since these forms of intelligent are mostly used by humans, it would follow then that I am significantly intelligent (of course assuming that I am not lying about my IQ (177; SD 15) score).
I said different species are intelligent in different ways.
Yeah, I read that. In what way is a pig intelligent in a way that humans aren't? I could tell you in what way a human is intelligent but pigs aren't.
Intraspecific intelligence is objectively measurable. My IQ scores are far beyond average and an IQ test is one medium for measuring certain facets of intelligence (e.g. inductive reasoning, appreciation of vocabulary, mathematical logic, etc.), and since these forms of intelligent are mostly used by humans, it would follow then that I am significantly intelligent (of course assuming that I am not lying about my IQ (177; SD 15) score).
Ah right. Other humans are just intelligent in different ways.
Haha. Why not write a parapraph in Spanish for the people? You commit errors that a native Spanish speaker would not. At one point you had to finish your sentence in English because you couldn't think of the Spanish phrase I seem to remember.
Perhaps there is a disconnect given that (Spain) Spanish and South American Spanish are adequately dissimilar (esp. the creole type Spanish in Barcelona).
They speak Catalan in Barcelona. It is a separate language. What they speak in Puerta Rica is Spanish. The difference between their Spanish and Spanish in Spain is like the difference between British and American English. But anyway I shouldn't be bullying you. If you want to pretend to be a Spanish speaker go ahead. It is quite obvious that you're not from when you wrote in Spanish before.
Who lies about speaking a language, firstly (I understand if I said Chinese to push my narcissistic agenda of me seeming tremendously intelligent and scholarly, but it is simple Spanish). Secondly, Catalan is a Spanish-based creole but thanks for clarifying the actual name of such creole.
Thirdly, Spanish speakers have a different lexicon depending on country of origin, which is why a certain expressions may have a different meaning culture to culture (like Cuba & Mexico, for example). So it is not like English being analogous to BE entirely (the accent difference may be analogous but not the entire lexicon). The proper analogy would be how Brazilian Portuguese differs substantially from Portugal Portuguese.
So the fact that you pointed out seemingly minor grammar errors is suggestive of the lexical disconnect (that in conjunction with my dyslexia, which almost entails occasional grammatical errors).
Who lies about speaking a language, firstly (I understand if I said Chinese to push my narcissistic agenda of me seeming tremendously intelligent and scholarly, but it is simple Spanish). Secondly, Catalan is a Spanish-based creole but thanks for clarifying the actual name of such creole.
I have no idea why you would like but you did. Reply to me in Spanish and prove me wrong? It is simple. Catalan is not Spanish-based. sigh
So the fact that you pointed out seemingly minor grammar errors is suggestive of the lexical disconnect (that in conjunction with my dyslexia, which almost entails occasional grammatical errors).
What? No. There were huge parts that were clearly written by a non-native speaker. Do I have to dig them out?
"I have no idea why you would like but you did. Reply to me in Spanish and prove me wrong? It is simple."
You are assuming that I am lying, but your assumptions are fallible. Me speaking Spanish wont prove anything given that you are no (proven) Spanish linguist (and therefore no authority).
I did misspeak when I said 'Spanish-based', notwithstanding it is still relatively a form of creole.
"What? No. There were huge parts that were clearly written by a non-native speaker. Do I have to dig them out?"
You are assuming that I am lying, but your assumptions are fallible. Me speaking Spanish wont prove anything given that you are no (proven) Spanish linguist (and therefore no authority).
Believe me. I have Spanish friends that would love to laugh to over you trying to pretend to be native.
I did misspeak when I said 'Spanish-based', notwithstanding it is still relatively a form of creole.
Wtf? No it isn't. Show me one source that would suggest this? It evolved like any other language. It is not formed from a pidgin. Now you are going to redefine creole and say you always meant that meaning I suppose. Like you always do. I think in this case they you are going to find it very difficult. It has quite a precise meaning.
I'll address the creole thing after this post; but speaking Spanglish is common amongst Latin American especially Puerto Ricans (given that our country is American territory), furthermore, for Latinos that grew up in America it is also relatively common to find them speaking Spanglish (just take a trip to New York).
I keep iterating that there is a disconnect with your knowledge of appreciation of Spain and Latin America. Not everyone who is and speaks Spanish, is the same, nor do they speak the same.
You the epitome of a terrible debater, you assert unknowable thing as true and progress with your obvious contentious premise. You believe X so therefore X is true...? Simpleton.
Lastly, for that statement to be the determining factor for why I don't speak Spanish is quite bothering given that if I knew how to say 97% of the sentence in Spanish but not the last 3%... I hope you have better reasoning skills than that, Atrag.
I'll address the creole thing after this post; but speaking Spanglish is common amongst Latin American especially Puerto Ricans (given that our country is American territory), furthermore, for Latinos that grew up in America it is also relatively common to find them speaking Spanglish (just take a trip to New York).
I keep iterating that there is a disconnect with your knowledge of appreciation of Spain and Latin America. Not everyone who is and speaks Spanish, is the same, nor do they speak the same.
LOL I fucking love it!! "You realise that Puerto Ricans only speak a half Spanish right?" Fine. Neither you nor Puerto Ricans speak Spanish. Neither of you know how to say "why you do" in Spanish.
You the epitome of a terrible debater, you assert unknowable thing as true and progress with your obvious contentious premise. You believe X so therefore X is true...? Simpleton.
Not sure what you mean. I assert you don't speak Spanish because you didn't know how to say a very very simple sentence. At least I am not choosing a language, that I didn't even know the name of, and saying that it was developed from pidgin. LOL!
Lastly, for that statement to be the determining factor for why I don't speak Spanish is quite bothering given that if I knew how to say 97% of the sentence in Spanish but not the last 3%... I hope you have better reasoning skills than that, Atrag.
It was 15% of a very very simple text. You wouldn't even pass a intermediate level exam nevermind pass for a native. I guess you speak it like many other USA speakers. As I say, embarrassing considering your heritage.
LOL I fucking love it!! "You realise that Puerto Ricans only speak a half Spanish right?" Fine. Neither you nor Puerto Ricans speak Spanish. Neither of you know how to say "why you do" in Spanish.
Do you even know what "Spanglish' is? When one is speaking Spanglish they incorporate Spanish and English in the same sentence, which is exactly what I did. Why must you insist on misrepresenting my satements? Did I say Puerto Ricans speak half Spanish? Or did I say it is common for them to speak Spanglish?
I will discontinue this debate if all you're going to do is contort everything that I say to advance your fallacious agenda.
Not sure what you mean. I assert you don't speak Spanish because you didn't know how to say a very very simple sentence. At least I am not choosing a language, that I didn't even know the name of, and saying that it was developed from pidgin. LOL!
So out of the semi-complex phraseology I used (it wasn't elementary level Spanish hence 'semi-complex'), you choose the last 3 words to determine that I don't speak a language. I don't know if you're being unreasonable intentionally or unwittingly...
Do you even know what "Spanglish' is? When one is speaking Spanglish they incorporate Spanish and English in the same sentence, which is exactly what I did. Why must you insist on misrepresenting my satements? Did I say Puerto Ricans speak half Spanish? Or did I say it is common for them to speak Spanglish?
You twist and turn like a trapped weasel. You admitted you did not know how to say those last three words. "...I don't speak Spanish is quite bothering given that if I knew how to say 97% of the sentence in Spanish but not the last 3%..." You were not speaking "Spanglish" but merely not saying something in Spanish that you didn't know how to say.
Here we go with your continual misrepresentations...
You intentionally cut out the first part of my statement to make it seem as though I said that I don't speak Spanish, yet, I said "for that statement to be the determining factor for why I don't speak Spanish is quite bothering."
For me not speaking 3 words out of 10 in Spanish would be not suggestive of me lacking the ability to speak said language given the ratio.
I respect people who stand up for what they believe in and exectute their goals effectively, intstead of simply indulging in the idea from an internal stance.
So, if someone believe that you, as a person, shouldn't exist any longer and wished to execute you would you respect their decision if they were truly going to execute their goal (which is to eliminate you)?
My respect manifests in the appreciation of their will and determination followed with their execution, not the act itself. So when you redirect the scenario towards me you then negate the intended premise (which is the unspecified will and execution).
--
Trust me I engage in such philosophical quandary, it's just in this case, my meaning of respect is geared toward the intangible will and execution.
Hm. I think that I would say that by this reasoning (for me) I would respect his will and determination, but not him. I think respect for a person should come from what they do with said will and determination.
You don't actually need to control a country or territory to profit. You can profit far more as a corporate entity than a government entity.
I am not sure if you are just simple-minded or misinformed, but being a fascist dictator is not a good way to achieve large profits. Not only is it inefficient, it also endangers your life far more than being a CEO.
Not necessarily, if I was a dictator, as apposed to a systemic govt., I could easily profit more than a corporation. Do you know why? I can collect profits from such corporation given my powerful dictatorship. In an implicit sense, I own each corporation (including banks and churches).
Collection of profits requires a the setup of a bureaucratic system like the IRS. The larger the bureaucracy, the higher the waste. While you can certainly "trim the fat" through totalitarian methods, it would still not guarantee the same growth that a business in a free-ish market would achieve. The goal of profit is more easily met through a profit oriented entity.
This still does not explain how the goal of profit would lead to the conclusion: "I yearn to be a dictator." It seems like "I yearn to be a robber baron" would make more sense.
While I understand what you are trying to represent by your statements, I would like to point out a few things.
To show respect to someone who carries out a horribly evil plan, executed well or not is wrong. There are many positive examples of someone who makes a plan and executes it well. Why not praise them? Do you praise Hitler for being determined trying to exterminate the Jewish race?
I do not respect/support or in any way admire the Charleston Shooter.
BTW, Your debate is not in the form of a question.
If you need violence to enforce your ideas, your ideas are worthless. Anyway this shooting was as fake as every other fake shooting. Active shooter drill the same place and same time? 3 million fast tracked to each family from the government and donation pages? He claimed he was racist yet his friends say he never said anything racist to them and his family said he was not raised racist. 20 or so of his 79 facebook friends are colored. No proof of bodies and ZERO emotion coming from the victims families. How can you believe this? No proof he actually killed anyone. While you all were busy focusing on the fake shooting Obama was pushing for more gun control legislation and more power was given to Obama involving the TPP(Secrect trade agreement, the only information we know is what has been leaked) But there are like 100 whole senators they would leak it! 90% of them have not read a page of it, yet they still voted for it.
No really. Just the ones that get instant media coverage, 100s of thousands from donations and have a drill the same day same area. And there cannot be proof of bodies. The fact you believe this and are not skeptical of it makes me sad actually
You should go outside and look around. Instant media coverage has been common for quite a while now. Was the dress color thing also some national conspiracy?
have a drill the same day same area
Do you know how many murders occur near law enforcement drills? Do you know how many law enforcement locations there are in the US?
Your claim is like saying that a shark attack is a conspiracy simply because we are in the ocean.
And there cannot be proof of bodies.
There are proof of bodies. There are coroner reports, police reports, and witness testimonies.
Of course, in your mind, these people are all government shills.
It seems like you believe you are one of the few smart and strong-willed enough to resist government payoffs and see the truth.
I don't believe I am anything. I believe I have been exposed to information that not everyone gets to see or refuses to see. I could care less. I am not an egomaniac or else I would be saying "LOL Idiots actually think this is real, wow you are so stupid, proof of bodies? NONE, why? BECAUSE FAKE DUMMIES". I didn't post a source link to the active shooter drill, https://www.fletc.gov/training-calendar Charleston ASTITP - Active Shooter Threat Instructor Training Program C_ASTITP-501 06/15/2015-06/19/2015 every time a fake/staged event happens there is a drill, you CAN'T make this stuff up! I prefer to see photos of the bodies with my own eyes, anyone can lie for money(3 million to each family from the government, sketchy...) Why use them as examples? This got national coverage within hours. What about the mass shootings that are stopped by law wielding citizens? Don't hear about that.
every time a fake/staged event happens there is a drill
Refer to my shark attack comment earlier.
I prefer to see photos of the bodies with my own eyes, anyone can lie for money(3 million to each family from the government, sketchy...) Why use them as examples?
Obviously, everyone who has ever been offered money has kept their mouth shut and accepted the offer. Those who refuse are summarily executed to prevent whisteblowing. How else can you explain the lack of corroboration regarding your conspiracy theories?
This got national coverage within hours. What about the mass shootings that are stopped by law wielding citizens? Don't hear about that.
A colorful dress also got instant national coverage. Can you spot the similarity?
I'll just leave this one here for people who are actually interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXW7I4OMkbg (OMG SAME GUY AS DALLAS!) yeah it's the same guy. I recommend him the most
Sorry all I did was come across some information that you have never seen that swayed my opinion. It's like a christian calling an atheist a bad person because they don't believe in something they have never seen or experienced...
Sigh... You are so annoying. The media is bias, the government does not care about you, the government has killed millions around the globe, the government lies to you everyday, Your senators vote for a bill they have not even read despite public outcry, the government unclassifies documents stating that they would attack themselves in order to go to war with cuba(operation northwoods) and you don't think they would do it now? The CIA admits they use media to manipulate america this is just a conspiracy theory too right? They work with the cartels and they profit off of non violent drug offenders. All these things that are all something everyone should know yet you still think your government wouldn't do something to the American citizens? I use those words because you don't just wake up and know this information. People who are willfully ignorant is something most people do not waste their time on but for some reason I always try. Oh you want sources to that information? Just search it in google, hundreds of sources there why would I give you one source that could be bias when you can research it yourself and make your own conclusion