November Stundie Nominations

[twinstead]

Rerevisionist makes a distinction between people who are Jewish and people who only think they are Jewish. I suppose we're among the wannabes.

Does that make us rerejewish?

 

[matt.tansy]

Does that make us rerejewish?

No, it makes us rereregentiles.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Wouldn't a rerevisionist just be a visionist?

No, I think that would be a derevisionist.

 

[jaydeehess]

Although this might seem a little cliche, I decided to nominate the nut anyway:



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2216939499390&set=o.2208880197&type=1&theater

Well, given that he seems to be conflating the collapse of the towers and of WTC 7 as well as displaying great ignorance in other aspects of 9/11, I would say it counts as Stundiable.

 

[jaydeehess]

It continues to amaze me how they think a firefighter looking at a burning building and thinking it might collapse is evidence for their side.

To be fair here's MM stating the exact opposite as evidence for his side:

When the unexpected occurs, not once, not twice, but, three times, at the same 16 acre site, on the same day, and all in the span of 7.5 hours, it is particularly reasonable to seek an explanation that would make the occurrences a logical expectation......
quotes an article about a meeting at 9:20 am in which "none of the Chiefs" expressed concern about a total collapse. Said article does state that one cheif worried that the upper floors could begin collapsing in a few hours and that FFs should probably not venture above the 60th floor.......
.........And the collapses were unexpected for good reason.

The WTC Twin Towers were designed to withstand aircraft collision and subsequent fire.

Yes I know there has been much debate on this issue, but no one has disproved the engineering white paper which claimed such design.

Unquestionably, the impacted floors were seriously damaged, and it is even possible that an area of partial collapse might have been a reasonable expectation.

But a total, high speed collapse, from aircraft impact and subsequent fires alone, for two of the three largest towers at the WTC site?

A big NO.

.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wait..wait..wait just a gosh darn second....if we're all Jews...that doesn't mean I have to the little...uh...you know..."snip snip" down south does it? Because that **** ain't happening.

No Jewish in my family yet that little-off-the-top clip job was done. Reportedly made me howl. I'm much better now.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

I nominate Anders Lindman...

I nominate Anders Lindman for his attempt to explain fractional reserve banking:

As I wrote before, $1 in reserves means that the bank can create $9 out of thin air and lend out $10. That's 10% fractional reserve requirement.

 

[slowsmile]

I nominate Anders Lindman for his attempt to explain fractional reserve banking:

How strange - that appears to be just the sort of thing put forward by the "Lawful Bank" - fronted by the World Freeman Society and the bankrupt Roger Hayes of the British Constitution Group.

http://lawfulbank.com/

"A positive credit system – for every £1 of cash deposited, each member creates £10 credit in their account. This credit (created by the system) on the back of the cash deposited is the property of the member and thus not a debt to the member. This will provided streams of credit to the system – and not debt."

 

[matt.tansy]

When stupid people argue with stupider people it's guaranteed lulz in every paragraph.

They cite and quote yet somehow in the midst of all that the OP misses the fact that nowhere is it written that the half-life of a substance is related to it's concentration.

From our new favorite source of Stundies: http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=55#p230

Another inconsistency we can notice is why the nuclear material inside the bomb isn't slowly (but quite fast in fact) consumed ? In a nuclear plant, they say the nuclear material is consumed in less than three years and then needs to be replaced by a new one. But, for atomic bombs, it seems that the same laws don't apply. You can keep it during thirty year without any problem of material depletion.

In fact, the nuclear material inside atomic bombs should be depleted way faster than the one from nuclear plants, since it is supposed to be more concentrated (I speak of the state of the bomb before the explosion of course). It should be consumed in less than two or one year.

I can't wait to see Travis' title for this one.

 

[Travis]

I'm so happy we found nukelies.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

The perfect cover...

Ok, I see what you did there...

 

[jadebox]

I nominate Anders Lindman for his attempt to explain fractional reserve banking:

As I wrote before, $1 in reserves means that the bank can create $9 out of thin air and lend out $10. That's 10% fractional reserve requirement.

Several times I've had a conversation with someone about what "reserves" means, and each time the other person thought that it means the bank can loan out more than the total of the bank's customer's deposits. So, I suspect that's almost a universal misconception.

-- Roger

 

[Mr.D]

Several times I've had a conversation with someone about what "reserves" means, and each time the other person thought that it means the bank can loan out more than the total of the bank's customer's deposits. So, I suspect that's almost a universal misconception.

It's all right here in his own words.

Imagine that you yourself had $100 and created a loan by adding $900 out of thin air and lent that money to your neighbor and charged 5% interest on the loan. Pretty good scam..... eh excuse me, deal for you, eh? And if your neighbor can't pay you can take his/her car. Either way you win, big time. That's the ordinary banking scheme in a nutshell.

Seriously. In Anders-land, you can loan your neighbor $1000 even if you only have $100 to your name. All you have to do is pull $900 out of thin air and give him the cash.

 

[sylvan8798]

It's all right here in his own words.



Seriously. In Anders-land, you can loan your neighbor $1000 even if you only have $100 to your name. All you have to do is pull $900 out of thin air and give him the cash.

Somehow I don't think that's where he pulled that idea from...

 

[JayUtah]

So, I suspect that's almost a universal misconception.

Yes, I think so too. Almost everyone I've talked to as well thinks fractional reserve banking means creating money out of nothing -- reserves on hand being wrongly thought of as a fraction of the overall debt obligation rather than a fraction of the total deposits.

 

[Stacko]

I'm so happy we found nukelies.

Ahh! Don't say something we'll later regret. How do you knock on wood on the internet!

 

[Horatius]

Ahh! Don't say something we'll later regret. How do you knock on wood on the internet!

Dude, it's the Internet. If you haven't found a site you can "knock wood" to, you haven't been here very long...

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Yes, I think so too. Almost everyone I've talked to as well thinks fractional reserve banking means creating money out of nothing -- reserves on hand being wrongly thought of as a fraction of the overall debt obligation rather than a fraction of the total deposits.

I confess I am fuzzy on it. Could someone explain it in layman's terms please.

 

[Border Reiver]

The bank has $X in deposits/other assets.

The bank must hold onto at least $0.1X of said deposits/assets.

The bank may lend/invest not more than $0.9X of said deposits/assets.

 

[jaydeehess]

The bank has $X in deposits/other assets.

The bank must hold onto at least $0.1X of said deposits/assets as cash or cash equivalent (non-fixed term bonds mostly I believe).

The bank may lend/invest not more than $0.9X of said deposits/assets.

FTFY as per my understanding.

Now if you lend out or invest that other 90% and it not only fails to increase in value (ie. the lendee defaults or investements go bankrupt) then you lose money. Your depositors get wind of this and demand their full deposits back. You don't have it (cue Jimmy Stewart in "Its a Goof Life") and you soon are out of business yourself.