This is incredibly simple!

[defaultdotxbe]

Don't be ridiculous. There's no proof either way. Unless you count some admission by one guy.

whether theirs proof or not doesnt change that its a matter of fact, its either was an inside job or it wasnt, its not one of those "no wrong answer" questions like "whats your favorite color"

sorry for the derail, but thats why the whole "debate" concept doesnt work (same goes for evolution) you dont debate facts, you debate opinions

when i was in high school we had a debate as to whether there was justification for US involvement in WWII prior to the attack on pearl harbor, this was a debate of opinion (FWIW i was on the "yes it was justified" side, and we won, i was particularly proud of the concluding statement i wrote, lol)

debating whether 9/11 was an inside job or not is like debating whether the US got involved in WWII or not, its not an opinion, we were involved, its a fact


again, sorry for the derail, im about to go to bed, but id like to ask you one question, do you agree that sufficient voter education, to have them look at the issues and not just vote the letter next to the candidates name, and to give them the understanding the 3rd party and independent candidates are a viable alternative to the "big two" would negate the need to ban political parties, or any other drastic change to the so-called two party system? because this is something i have advocated since before i was even old enough to vote

 

[LightinDarkness]

Considering your lack of understanding of how money is created I'm not suprised by your weak attempts to provide an argument against those who criticise the 2 party system.

You know, you haven't the faintest idea on any of the topics I've seen you comment on. From money creation to politics, you are completely clueless. You are the epitome of conspiracy theory stupidity: you think you know everything, and yet you know absolutely nothing.

You fail miserably here because no one is claiming the 2 party system is not real. They are claiming it's not a proper democracy. And they are correct. There might be a perfunctory difference between each party but both sides are beholden to those who bankroll them and not the people.

You must have seriously failed political science 101. Your right, this isn't a democracy. ITS A REPUBLIC. It always has been, always will be.

People can vote for whomever they want to vote for: they choose to vote primarily for two parties. That is the will of the people, and that is why we have a two party system. The Democrat and Republican parties rarely if ever cooperate on anything, and they are two very different choices depending on your governing style.

A 2 party system gives the illusion of democracy by encouraging the voters to polarise themselves with something so they believe there vote actually achieves something.

Wrong. A two party system is one where, through institutional constraints and politics, two parties emerge as being predominate. Neither the Republican or Democrat party are opposites, much of what they disagree on make NO different in day to day life for Americans, but there are still important differences.

Of course we aren't really a two party system because we do have third parties. It just so happens most people never vote for them. A real two party system would make it legally impossible for other options to exist.

There's no democracy in being able to vote between 2 heavily vetted candidates who are largely bankrolled by the same people.

Again, this isn't a democracy. Its a republic. And its a republic when people get to vote for people who have different ideas on how government should be run.

Also, if you look at the funding sources for both parties, they are very different. Some companies hedge their bets by giving to both parties, but they always have a clear favorite.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You must have seriously failed political science 101. Your right, this isn't a democracy. ITS A REPUBLIC. It always has been, always will be.

its inaccurate to describe the US as either a democracy or a republic, it combines elements of a republic with a representative democracy, with some other stuff thrown in for good measure (BTW i got an A in political science 101)

 

[LightinDarkness]

its inaccurate to describe the US as either a democracy or a republic, it combines elements of a republic with a representative democracy, with some other stuff thrown in for good measure (BTW i got an A in political science 101)

The United States Federal Government is a republic - it just is. The only time any components of a democracy come in are in referendums, which occur only at the state and local level.

Over time, the word democracy has been warped to expand beyond its actual definition - which is when the people directly rule by voting on all matters of government. Some high school textbooks even mistakenly call it a "representative democracy" - which is a republic.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

You know, you haven't the faintest idea on any of the topics I've seen you comment on. From money creation to politics, you are completely clueless. You are the epitome of conspiracy theory stupidity: you think you know everything, and yet you know absolutely nothing.
...

Just calling someone clueless doesn't make it so.

Your irrational rant above is exposing your sensitivity to being called out. No one likes to be proved wrong and it's coming out in you by projecting yourself on others.

Oh and no I don't know everything and have never claimed to do so. Another

So you can call me clueless on money creation if you like but by doing so then you also call the Federal Reserve clueless. I refer you to the Zeitgeist: Addendum thread where I have linked to the Federal Reserve's very own PDF which explains money creation exactly how both the Zeitgeist :Addendum film described it and I described it.

You may wish to take another look at just who is clueless.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Just calling someone clueless doesn't make it so.

Your irrational rant above is exposing your sensitivity to being called out. No one likes to be proved wrong and it's coming out in you by projecting yourself on others.

Oh and no I don't know everything and have never claimed to do so. Another

So you can call me clueless on money creation if you like but by doing so then you also call the Federal Reserve clueless. I refer you to the Zeitgeist: Addendum thread where I have linked to the Federal Reserve's very own PDF which explains money creation exactly how both the Zeitgeist :Addendum film described it and I described it.

You may wish to take another look at just who is clueless.

I already debunked it

You know, you really are a troll - just to see how much of a troll you are, I bet you that you won't be able to resist replying to this because you just want to get the last word. Its like dealing with a 8 year old child who won't stop crying until he gets in the last word.

Enjoy, troll You've been debunked, you lose.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I already debunked it

You know, you really are a troll - just to see how much of a troll you are, I bet you that you won't be able to resist replying to this because you just want to get the last word. Its like dealing with a 8 year old child who won't stop crying until he gets in the last word.

Enjoy, troll You've been debunked, you lose.

Of course I'm going to reply. I'm not going to be blackmailed by your childish insults. I've just read your alleged 'debunking' of te Fractional Reserve system and you haven't debunked anything. I shall reply in the thread.

And calling someone a troll because you can't bear to be proven wrong is really lame.

You can throw as many patronising schoolyard insults at me as you like but you can't debunk how the money system works. You're just making yourself look a fool. Give up.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Ding, ding ding! We've got ourselves a woo troll who, like all trolls, is absolutely compelled to respond to anything and cannot physically stop itself from getting the last word.

Just so you know for your future trolling, if you want to make it less obvious do NOT simply go around in threads that have the woo CT you believe in and use this defense: "NUH-UH! IT DOES NOT SAY THAT AND I NEVER SAID THAT" - thats not a defense, it just shows your clueless and haven't the faintest idea of what your talking about. You will try to attack someone on some point, get debunked, then claim you never stated the point that was debunked - even though its still in the thread! Also, your other tactic of simply making up what conspiracy theories like Zeitgeist say and do not say - every time a point of Zeitgeist gets debunked, you just act like it never made the point. You can't actually offer evidence for anything.

All in all..very pathetic. It really is like arguing to a 8 year old. Which is why you're a troll.

I cant stop laughing. Its so fun debunking woos..and even funnier when they are trolls AND woos. But you'll have to troll someone else, I'm done with your pathetic responses. But you won't be able to stop yourself from replying to get the last word on this, it makes you feel good because you do argue like a 8 year old. Go ahead, have it buddy, hope it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Ding, ding ding! We've got ourselves a woo troll who, like all trolls, is absolutely compelled to respond to anything and cannot physically stop itself from getting the last word.

Just so you know for your future trolling, if you want to make it less obvious do NOT simply go around in threads that have the woo CT you believe in and use this defense: "NUH-UH! IT DOES NOT SAY THAT AND I NEVER SAID THAT" - thats not a defense, it just shows your clueless and haven't the faintest idea of what your talking about. You will try to attack someone on some point, get debunked, then claim you never stated the point that was debunked - even though its still in the thread! Also, your other tactic of simply making up what conspiracy theories like Zeitgeist say and do not say - every time a point of Zeitgeist gets debunked, you just act like it never made the point. You can't actually offer evidence for anything.

All in all..very pathetic. It really is like arguing to a 8 year old. Which is why you're a troll.

I cant stop laughing. Its so fun debunking woos..and even funnier when they are trolls AND woos. But you'll have to troll someone else, I'm done with your pathetic responses. But you won't be able to stop yourself from replying to get the last word on this, it makes you feel good because you do argue like a 8 year old. Go ahead, have it buddy, hope it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

A classic example of the childish ranting of someone stomping his feet when cornered.

You're pedogibberish above completely lacks substance.

if you want to see some real substance then look here ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4158065&postcount=203

Where I have shown your debunking to not even answer what Zeitgeist was claiming.

I think what you struggle with most is having to admit that the Zeitgeist film is correct on it's description of how money is created and the explanation of perpetual debt and that's why, after failing to debunk it, you have finally humiliated yourself with your childish rant above.

It must be very uncomfortable for you to see the Federal reserve and what's known by may as a CT outfit agreeing with each other.