|Sender:||robert parker <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Added:||Mar 26, 2011|
|Sent to:||Edward L Winston|
I only went to make a post on the site, I doubt your lot would be able to read tis and smack a pair of braincells together and creat a spark of thought.
"Being the admin of a message board and an art school dropout is enough to diagnose people with mental illnesses isn't it? "
PMSL, you serious? What the man does for a living or his past education doesn't mean he hasn't gained experiances and along the way, gained knowledge. Experiance is the only real "truth" we can learn, a human being is all that is needed to diagnose someone from your own point of view.
Like PJ said when talking about a mental disability; "while we can have a diff in opinion, I feel these acts are".
At least PJ knows when to accept that people can have different opinions, maybe Edward should learn to be more like PJ in that respect? It's obvious Edward has a different religious point of view to PJ but I failed to see any debunking of the monetary system, just waffle with a few media links.
Moving over to Edward more than the original comment now;
Have you ever heard of a saying "Introduce a law for the benefit of the loophole"? Simple idea yet I bet someone like yourself wouldn't have thought of it for over a hundred years. Because it's so simple people won't believe thats what the policy is really for.
"Why is the next tool war? I thought you said that the Federal Reserve gave people power to bring entire societies to their knees. What happened to that? "
Limited funds can only bring a limited number of societies to there knees, more funds would be required along with the weakening of the other nation. You progress from one war to the second... to the third...
When you play monopoly and you own all the purples and greens then why try to get the rest of the board? You'll have the property to bring any one player to his knees if he lands on your fully loaded Mayfare square.
"If they were looking for an excuse, it sure took a while, because the US did not enter the war until April 6th, 1917"
No profit backing the losing team now is there? Wasn't the companies funding both sides of the war?
"War is profitable for a lot of people, banks typically don't make much money until the war is over because they loan the money to contractors, not the other way around."
Banks start making money from the initial repayment, have you got the banking sheets for national repayments for the period during the war? When to collect the repayments and the effects of the repayments are a buisness dicision, if it was going to be better to wait 10 years before collecting due to larger long term profits then I would assume it could be considered.
"Regardless if they borrow it at interest, as I have explained twice already, it does not matter because it is such a small amount of money in the national debt,"
Care to take over my rent payments? No? Why not, it's only a "small ammount" and as such does not matter. Or do you now claim otherwise?
"and in the end it doesn't matter anyway because it is credited to the treasury."
Gov collects tax, gov pays part of tax to private bank... how does it not matter? It's money being paid to a private company where it will not be reinvested into things like public transport, health care, public sector wages etc.
You gloss over a lot of what was mentioned in the film without researching fully, did you pregress into the legal system? The legality of how humans can be treated as slaves? I don't mean by the terrorist act but from something a lot more simple? For example, I am a human being, not an "individual"... but of course your a pro debunker so you would of researched all this correct? You already know about legaleese and how fact can NOT exist in the legal world, only fiction?
I don't know if your American or English so I'll assume you don't know this next bit.
All "ACTs" introduced by the goverment are not laws, they have no power over man and women who do not give consent to be governed by them. Yet due to these acts and the abuse of the legaleese language they (the goverment) gets everyones consent by getting the human being to confirm to represent the legal fiction.
From my own research I have drawn conclusions which altho do not confirm what PJ said to be fully accurate how-ever I found less still to disbelieve him, that is from making my own mind up after reading several "blogs/posts/interviews/etc..."
There is a issue of people dismissing something which is "obvious", this isn't new to our generation either. The obvious example of how common belief can be incorrect, is the world round or flat?
Not only does our own ignorance hurt us financually by not knowing how the system works, we also make our daily lives more of a gamble as well. Ignorance is no excuse yet we live in a lot of it.
The simple FACT is, if you fail to disprove something you more than likly help in proving it. To a lot of doubters who have read your post (and also watched the films) would see your "well i didnt find it so it cant be true" as "pfft, some knobjocky is being a troll".
Hey man, the movies aren't the movement, haven't you heard?
I didn't realize that PJ was something other than atheist, because that's what I am, so I'm not sure how we're different in that regard.
The simple fact is that the movie came out 4 years ago and you're latching on to it like religious doctrine, even when your movement on the one hand claims the film isn't a part of it, you still felt the need to defend it. Interesting...
And if you honestly think national debt is equivalent to your rent payments... well... I guess you already made it clear how retarded you are with all of your other well-played come backs of my content.
lol, this is going to get a lot of laughs.
Thank you for your responce Mr Edward, I wasn't expecting one so respect to you ^.^
I'm glad I ammuse you, I know that movie is 4 years old but I came across your site when looking up the third one.
I'm also fully aware that the movies are not the movment, I have researched unlike yourself, my evidence going into other juristictions is a good indication of that.
I wont go into what religion PJ follows, if any. I will say that you two appear to have come to different conclusions about a science fiction story, as for religion... I do not believe in any "god" and have been classed as a atheist on several occasions, I am a Jedi tho.
Now, would you be so kind as to answer me?
You asked questions which we're part of "debunking", the questions by appearance looked to be ones that we're asked to highlight "the obvious" how-ever when I pointed out how the obvious had been overlooked, Mr Edward fails to comment. Is this due to the person unable to counter the claims in any other way apart from trolling the person who asked the said question?
I'd be more than happy to have a debate with you(Mr Edward? or another admin staff?) for readers from TZM and CS boards to join in, maybe you could even get PJ on and we could find out how different your points of view are on religion (putting an opinion in a "box" doesn't mean it will be EXACTLY the same as another person in the same box).
Maybe then you'd be so kind to grace us with an answer in regards to my rebutting your "rebutted evidence".
I hope this will ammuse your lot like my original post, I know it'll ammuse more people if you put it on your site ;)
Loads of people would be pissing themselves with laughter at the ignorant troll abusing the "retard" who seeks to know by asking, by finding out for himself. At how the troll ignores the "retards" logical responce to his questions about the movie and yet still finds time to insult, what a fine role model for all young ones to look up to.
I actually look forward to another responce, I'll actually go back to your site and see if this has been posted ^.^ if so I'll be interested in random responces.
Have a good everning,
You can't debate irrational people who believe things like life experience makes them understand mental illness of people they've not only never met, but never spoken to.
If you want to "debate" me, please show what I said that was incorrect and provide a source for your counter statement that isn't a conspiracy book, movie, or youtube video. Of course, feel free to misquote any government sources like Peter Joseph does... hey, just like Alex Jones.
I have this problem where I ignore know-it-all losers on the Internet who feel the need to educate everyone else on how right they are about their conspiracy beliefs. It's something that I just can't seem to get over, but I may get help for it, after all I should dedicate all my time and life to talking to people like you.
Irrational because of the belief that life experiances can teach us?
That can't be aimed at me right? I've not called you crazy or anything, if PJ thinks you are then from his perspective, then you are to him.
As for "please show me where I am incorrect", your joking? I've asked you about what you've said as you've only put opinion at the points in question and you refuse to discuss it.
""War is profitable for a lot of people, banks typically don't make much money until the war is over because they loan the money to contractors, not the other way around.""
Have you any evidence to back this up? Or are you going to claim that everyone who reads your opinion should just take it for fact? From my comprehension, banks make money as soon as the initial repayment has been made. Did no repayments happen during all those years of warring? Have you got any evidence of this?
Disapointed that you wont allow other people to post at the end of these "Hate Mail" threads, lets see if you also answer me this time.
Let me show you what you pasted me:
"... banks typically don't make much money.."
Does it say banks make no money? No, it says 'much money'
Does it say that no payments are made?
Perhaps you'd like to explain how the US owed France so much money after the Revolutionary War, I guess somehow they didn't get the memo that all loans were to be repayed before the wars end?
Further more it says "typically," which makes it a generalization. Wars aren't funded by standard loans like you'd get to buy a car.
Jesus Christ, are you that dense dude? I mean really. You're taking a generalized reply that's meant to cover a broad, complex topic and turning nitpicking details which aren't even there.
Also people can reply to the hate mail, what are you talking about?
I didn't really read anything in your email other than your quote of me and the reply, and the last sentence, so I'm not going to reply to that -- because I really can't.
When did I ever mention total repayment DURING any war?
Thats you putting words into others mouths, so to speak.
So to also point out to potential other readers, you are a hipocrite.
You slandered one guy for claiming to work for a company who knew details and when he failed to give you all the evidence you demanded, you took the piss (for a lack of better wording, no insult meant).
Now your generalizing and claiming that to be your "fact"?
I know goverments can loan money differently to how you or I would get a loan to pay for a car or Mortgage. How-ever it is still a loan and as such is still paid back along with interest.
Depending on the companies goal, immediate repayments might be required or it could be left to be paid for over decades at more profit...
I do not know the banks buisness agenda back then, I have not found any evidence to say that the banks would not of found it highy profitable to have done it this way, afterall it appears to have worked in there favour when we look back and evaluate the outcome from a neatral perspective.
You might be right and it's all a load of BS, I have an open mind to consider that as well, I just need something to at least call evidence rather than a single individuals inability to provide evidence other than personal opinion.
Also to futher this, if money is created at debt via loans then what loss did those bank really make for loaning "created debt"? As long as they have the reserve and the incomming/outgoing to continue being active then things can be considered to be going good enough.
You can find yet another book about money matters, free to download in PDF format. Worth giving a good read but then you would only try to pick faults.
I can't comment on the French debt as I do not know of it, I havnt been bothered to look into enough to develop my own opinion. I do know of other debts, more so to do with England (United Kingdom/Great Britan or what-ever tag wants to be put on the company). Not enough to be classed as an expert and I know I will only ever be able to put forward my view on this, no different to you in that respect.
Going back to your last responce;
"... banks typically don't make much money.."
Still making money right?
"Does it say banks make no money? No, it says 'much money'"
As I already highlighted, it is still making some money. Do we have any evidence to say that what they done wasn't there agenda? I havnt seen any.
"Jesus Christ, are you that dense dude? I mean really. You're taking a
generalized reply that's meant to cover a broad, complex topic and turning
nitpicking details which aren't even there."
Is that not what you've done?
For example about the Central Banks;
"The primary reason a central banking system was implemented is because "free banking systems", that is ones that are not centralized, were unstable."
Yet currency worked for thousands of years prior to our current established financual insititute, keeping a form of stability.
I am not going to go on and try to dispute about banks only lasting 5 years but you seem to have skimmed over and ignored WHY they only lasted 5 years, in short it was due to the manipulation in the market by the "bigger boys" who knew more about the system than they did.
"Jesus Christ, are you that dense dude?"
That line is now turned back on you.
You claimed that I said/implied nothing was ever paid back until the war was over, and I didn't say that at all. I already showed you the context, but you ignored it in your original emails in order to try to zing me. I'm not a hypocrite because I stated plainly that not much money was made during a war, yet you implied over and over that I said no money was made, and demanded to see proof.
>> You slandered one guy for claiming to work for a company who knew details and when he failed to give you all the evidence you demanded, you took the piss (for a lack of better wording, no insult meant).
Slandered? haha, starting to use that Peter Joseph alarmism are we? Might want to build up to that instead.
Hey Robert, did you know that I used to work for a company, but I can't tell you which one or anything about it, but we worked on a time machine and my boss went back in time and assassinated JFK. Please, believe me! If you don't believe me or ask for proof, you're slandering me!
>> Now your generalizing and claiming that to be your "fact"?
Sorry, please show me on my site where I say anything I write is absolute fact. I'm really interested to see that. You obviously don't know what my site is for, it's to see if things claimed by conspiracy theorists are correct, and I don't have access to any top secret or privileged information that you don't either. I've been wrong many times before, and I'm more than willing to update my site, you can see many updates and changes that were made to the Zeitgeist movie article. I guess my original facts weren't facts, since you seem to believe that I believe everything I say is fact? Get over yourself.
>> I do not know the banks buisness agenda back then,
You say it all right here. That 1) everyone has an "agenda" and 2) that you don't really know as much about banking as you think you do.
>> You might be right and it's all a load of BS,
It doesn't need to be all bullshit, if even say 30% of a conspiracy theory is completely wrong or a lie, then the other 70% should be absolutely suspect and not trusted at all without concrete proof. Take the Zeitgeist movie, whatever you think about Parts 1 and 3, Part 2 makes up 33.33e% of the film, and since basically everything said in there was wrong, and 9/11 wasn't an inside job, everything else in the film should be taken with a grain of salt.
>> I have an open mind to consider that as well, I just need something to at least call evidence rather than a single individuals inability to provide evidence other than personal opinion.
That's the best part about having a web site, I can say whatever I want. I don't deny anywhere that my articles are full of opinions. It's impossible to know every single thing about historical events, but you can provide hypotheses based on the evidence you already have.
>> Also to futher this, if money is created at debt via loans then what loss did those bank really make for loaning "created debt"?
Once the money is loaned, even if it's at a debt, they can't reuse all of those assets again -- they have to keep 10%. The reason they do it this way is so that the currency expands with the assets that exist. If this wasn't done, and say gold backed currency was used, we'd end up with far more assets in the real world than gold to back it.
But as far as funding wars goes, a lot of times these are done with hard currency of some sort, or with investing in bonds. Like I said it's more complicated than a loan for a house.
>> You can find yet another book about money matters, free to download in PDF format. Worth giving a good read but then you would only try to pick faults.
What's wrong with picking faults? Especially when someone claims to tell me the "real truth" about money, as if it's secret knowledge that no one else can figure out. Why do you Zeitgeist people even trust these libertarians anyway? It's 100% irrelevant to your cause how banking works, as you are supposed to oppose banking of any kind.
>> Still making money right?
Exactly, and you implied I said they didn't make any.
>> As I already highlighted, it is still making some money. Do we have any evidence to say that what they done wasn't there agenda? I havnt seen any.
Sorry, but you need evidence of an agenda, you don't work backwards from assuming they just have one.
>> Yet currency worked for thousands of years prior to our current established financual insititute, keeping a form of stability.
Except not really. Just having currency backed by something or even made of something (like gold coins) means nothing, ask Rome or Spain. You're confusing people's trust in States with their trust in currency.
Again why do you guys even give a shit about this stuff? The only reason it was even in the first Zeitgeist movie is because Peter Joseph was a Ron Paul promoter -- which is why the original activism section on the Zeitgeist movie site was all "Ron Paul '08!"
>> I am not going to go on and try to dispute about banks only lasting 5 years but you seem to have skimmed over and ignored WHY they only lasted 5 years, in short it was due to the manipulation in the market by the "bigger boys" who knew more about the system than they did.
Wrong, and I showed why that was wrong. They didn't last becasue the currency didn't expand and because there was no safety net. At least when banks fail today people don't lose all of their money thanks to the FDIC.
If what you are saying were true, why don't banks fail as often today if there's still this huge agenda going on behind the scenes? Are you suggesting banks are better today than they were then? If so, why should we go back to banking of that era?
You just keep repeating that there's an agenda, where's your proof? You don't provide any other than just stating there is one. That's just a conspiratorial belief based on absolute faith alone, and that's the exact opposite of evidence.
There's no way we can debate issues if you insist that you're correct just because there's an "agenda."
>> That line is now turned back on you.
Maybe that's just a secret agenda by people holding me down!