The gazillionith July Stundie Nom thread

Sorry the June Finals are not quite done. It was a choice to finish them or spend time with a beautiful redhead.


Sorry Stundies.
 
Priorities man, priorities!

If you had chosen the stundies I would have been disappointed.
 
Thread needs more cake.

christina-hendricks-cleavage-new-yo.jpg
 
World wars are caused by the existence of the Federal Reserve:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/nightmarescenario.php

By design private central banks such as the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the European Central Bank, etc. all create debt faster than they create money with which to pay the debt. Under the rules of private central banking money can only enter circulation as the proceeds of a loan at interest. All the so-called "bailouts" are simply more loans, plunging the subjugated populations deeper into debt. The private central bankers cannot change the rules without admitting to the public the system was flawed from the start and governments that sold their populations into the slavery of private central banking cannot change the rules without admitting they were stupid (or corrupt) for falling for the fraud in the first place.

The "Eleventh Marbles" keep piling up and now the total debt for all the nations with private central banks has reached unpayable levels, and worse, economies are struggling and starving just to make partial interest payments and like the United States, are not able to pay down the principle, even as the borrowing continues.

A crash is coming. It is unavoidable. The bankers and the governments know they cannot fix the problem, so they are desperate to find someone or some thing they can blame for the disaster. War makes a great scapegoat for the greed of banking and the corruption of government, and it is a formula which has worked before. Economic crash? "Solve" it by creating a war to blame the hardships and starvation on.

Crash of 1907, "solve" it with World War 1.

Crash of 1929, "solve" it with World War 2.

Crash of 2008 and the US and Wall Street are well on their way to "solving" it with World War 3, at present wars against ten nations on two continents.

Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no such thing as a World War.
Click to expand...
 
LSSBB said:
Which bank was behind the Napoleonic Wars?

Were wars like the Russo-Japanese and Crimean caused by just regional Reserve banks, I wonder?
Click to expand...

A world war is defined as a war involving the US (or whatever country the author is from/has a grudge against). Stuff from way back (undefined limit) and involving countries nobody's heard of don't count.
 
Or it could be that World Wars are one where the US fights off shore - the Seven Years War, fought on the seas, in Europe, in India and in both Americas, is known south of the border as the "French and Indian War"
 
LSSBB said:
Which bank was behind the Napoleonic Wars?

Were wars like the Russo-Japanese and Crimean caused by just regional Reserve banks, I wonder?
Click to expand...

I think you would get one of two responses from the CTers on this:

1. The Jews and/or Rothschilds were responsible. (After all CT about "bankers" is really about the Jews.)
2. Anything that didn't happen to Americans doesn't count.

The latter is very likely. I have noticed that American CTers are very america-centric. Their CT assumes that the US is some sort of magical lynchpin holding back whatever conspiracy they think is running the world. This is why so many of their CT are about how the conspiracy is trying to "destroy America".
 
LSSBB said:
Which bank was behind the Napoleonic Wars?
Click to expand...
CT answer = Rothschilds. Not that it reflects the historical record but when has that ever stopped them?

Crash of 1907, "solve" it with World War 1.

Crash of 1929, "solve" it with World War 2.

Crash of 2008 and the US and Wall Street are well on their way to "solving" it with World War 3...
Click to expand...

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
 
Evolutionary theory about events a few hundred thousand years ago are invalidated because we can't 100% reliably explain events occurring hundreds of billions of years ago.

el zone said:
Hey some of your quotes above were before I promised to be good you will see me stick to topic.

Don't go. I believe God assembled them from space particles though I don't know how. I don't even understand my concept of God, but my understanding of genetics implies to me square one had to have a creator.

So evolutionists pick up their certainty millions of years down the road and the original questions are still left to study? To me that's convenient.
Click to expand...


el zone said:
And its not even square one...by extension evolutionists are big bang buyers too right? I'm not saying this to stray, I'm saying that in order for you to be sure of the current theories of ancestral man ranging back ~100k years you must have assembled that knowledge with a priori facts.

Evolutionists in the thread, please fill in these gaps. How can you be sure of what happened 100k years ago if you can't even tell me beyond 99.999% how matter was created (hb reference)
Click to expand...
 
Robrob said:
CT answer = Rothschilds. Not that it reflects the historical record but when has that ever stopped them?

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Click to expand...

And not even a good sharpshooter at that. WWI began 7 years after the 1907 downturn, and WWII began either 8 years after the 1929 crash (in Asia) or 10 years (Europe). Not to mention thatthe 1890s Depression was a LOT worse than 1907 but no major world war came from it.

I could do just as well blaming both world wars on the invention of the movies (WWII on the invention of a practical "talkie" in the 1920s)
 
http://pesn.com/2012/06/30/9602121_Solid_State_E-Cat/


When first introduced to the world, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat required a flow of water to remain stable, even at low temperatures. Now, he has developed a new "solid state" high temperature model that is stable at temperatures even higher than 600C -- with no cooling needed!

By Hank Mills
Pure Energy Systems News
Click to expand...



"Good news, everyone! Our completely ******** cold fusion device is now even more ********-ier!"
 
LemmyCaution said:
Here a Holocaust denier, whilst puffing himself up and wrapping himself in a cloak of superiority, corners himself and devises what he imagines to be an ingenious escape clause for himself and best-case explanation for the fate of European Jews murdered by the National Socialists and their allies: "Those people," he decides, his post oozing condescension and pomposity, "were never there," Europe having had no Jewish population for the Nazis to target and condemn to death: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8419380&postcount=3692. I think Dogzilla is a winner with this conceit.
Click to expand...

That's really not fair to nominate Dogzilla for this. He doesn't have the wit or intelligence of skeptical thinkers like you. When he took the Stanford-Binet IQ test, he scored only fifty points higher than feebleminded.

He probably thinks that holocaust denier skeptics who argue that the death toll at any individual concentration camp cannot be reduced unless a corresponding number of previously unknown Jewish survivors can be found living somewhere in the world is kind of dumb, especially considering the fuzzy numbers existing in the world of the holocaust. In The War Against the Jews, Lucy Dawidowicz estimated that 5,933,900 Jews perished in the holocaust. Am I required to locate 833,900 Jews who survived but nobody knew about if I want to accept Raul Hilberg's estimate of 5,100,000? No, obviously not.

He no doubt looks at past adjustments to holocaust death tolls and has noted that there has never been an adjustment downward that was offset by the discovery of an equal number of previously unknown survivors. For example, the Auschwitz death toll was changed from 4 million to 1.5 million (1.1 million? I'm not sure what it is right now) in 1989. So where did those 2.5 million people go if they weren't exterminated? The answer, obviously, is that they never existed.

That's what the Big Dog is saying. He's not saying that there were never any Jews in Europe. That would be stupid even for a prehistoric canine/dinosaur crossbreed with a brain the size of a walnut. What I'm confused about now is...you're not a dishonest man. You don't intentionally mischaracterize somebody's position by erecting some sort of a strawman that you can then slay and pretend you won. If you cannot intelligently refute somebody's position, your not going to lie about that person's position to make them sound stupid. So you read and understood what Dogzilla was really saying and yet you thought he was saying that there weren't any Jews in Europe. For you to misunderstand that comprehensively is frankly, stunning.

Even if he did say there weren't any Jews in Europe, does that compare to the time he implied that how the Nazis defined "Jew" was relevant to the holocaust? He was given the smackdown he deserved but, really, why would anybody think it's necessary to define a persecuted group just to persecute them?
 
Dogzilla said:
He no doubt looks at past adjustments to holocaust death tolls and has noted that there has never been an adjustment downward that was offset by the discovery of an equal number of previously unknown survivors.
Click to expand...

dz is so desperate to distact from its idiocy that it is channelling Tom Moran, a denier from the "Golden Age" of alt.revisionism who always referred to himself in the third person.

In any case, dz *still* hasn't understood that there has never been an adjustment down -- there have been different methodologies which have (and could have been expected to have) arrived at different totals.

dz has no such methodology that it has ever articulated, any more than it has a coherent narrative of the overall scope of the events collectively known as the Holocaust.

But, true to form, even when the idiocy is pointed out, it cannot just simply admit a mistake and move on since one of the deniers dearest if unspoken tactics in their denial is "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" as if finding a small fault in the accepted history invalidates all of history. Deep down, they realize this is idiotic, but keeping up that facade requires them to never admit fault, lest they be hoist on their own petard.

A losing game, that, since there are so many other ways in which they have things bass ackwards one more isn't going to make that big a difference.

So, dz, let's go back to the thread in which it is on-topic, and you can enlighten us all as to the methodology you used to determine that millions of Jews documented by the Nazis themselves as having been shipped around behind the front lines never really existed.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore appears to think he's playing Jeopardy. If BasqueArch has the answer, what's the question?

Clayton Moore said:
BasqueArch said:
Here's a picture of WTC7 showing per above; perimeter columns buckle at a small angle and failure at the splices.
Click to expand...
Can someone tell me how those columns could have been sheared so evenly?
Click to expand...

Dave
 
TomtomKent disagrees and thinks DZ made a stundie statement.
TomtomKent doesn't write about what he "probably" thinks in third person. He is fully aware of his own thought process.

And now I shall start writing in first person, as i dislike the habit of using the third person to discussyourself. To my mind that itself is stundie worthy.
 
Myron Proudfoot said:
And not even a good sharpshooter at that. WWI began 7 years after the 1907 downturn, and WWII began either 8 years after the 1929 crash (in Asia) or 10 years (Europe). Not to mention thatthe 1890s Depression was a LOT worse than 1907 but no major world war came from it.

I could do just as well blaming both world wars on the invention of the movies (WWII on the invention of a practical "talkie" in the 1920s)
Click to expand...


I'm still pondering if ALL wars can be properly attributed to the invention of pottery, or to the wheel...
 
DOC said:
All the translations should be considered. When someone claims there is a contraction, and there is a translation out there (or other possible explanation) that says there is no contradiction, then the the alleged contradiction is suspect. I have still never seen an alleged contradiction in the NT that can't be reconciled in some way. (I haven't studied the OT deep enough to answer totally for that section of the bible)
Click to expand...

Wow, so the Bible is inherently accurate - as long as you cherry pick each sentence from different translations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom