$15,000,000,000,000 ($15 Trillion) In Fraud Exposed In Uk House Of Lords

[Slim]

And that is your argument??! Haha... nice to know we're in such esteemed intellectual company.

 

I asked questions about his legitimacy, that's the most important thing when listening to someone's unfounded opinions. Care to answer the questions?

[Lxxx]

And that is your argument??! Haha... nice to know we're in such esteemed intellectual company.

 

I asked questions about his legitimacy, that's the most important thing when listening to someone's unfounded opinions. Care to answer the questions?

 

Your question about what makes him more qualified than you or me to comment about this speaks volumes. Go and have a play around with a search engine before coming out with such rubbish. He was one of the most respected and well connected intelligence journalists/analysts of the past 40 years and has has more experience and knowledge in his little finger than either me or you could hope to amass on the subject. So I would say his opinions are a little more than 'unfounded' and might just be a little more qualified on the subject than either of us two. Whether he is entirely correct or not is another matter, he could easily be working for the establishment, but that isn't the point in question.

[P.K.]

Your question about what makes him more qualified than you or me to comment about this speaks volumes. Go and have a play around with a search engine before coming out with such rubbish. He was one of the most respected and well connected intelligence journalists/analysts of the past 40 years and has has more experience and knowledge in his little finger than either me or you could hope to amass on the subject.

 

What do you disagree with about the article? I couldn't care less who wrote it, I've never even heard of the bloke before but the fact he wrote a very good article means it's a very good article, simple as that. It could say kermit the frog as far I am concerned, if I read something and it resonates with me against previous research and knowledge and sounds plausible then I tend to make a judgement based on that, I don't rush out into Google and see who wrote it and their background before coming to my conclusions. If that's the way you want to live your life and process your information then fine, crack on, don't let me stand in the way of intellectual genius.

 

Bye bye Lxxxx....

[Lxxx]

Your question about what makes him more qualified than you or me to comment about this speaks volumes. Go and have a play around with a search engine before coming out with such rubbish. He was one of the most respected and well connected intelligence journalists/analysts of the past 40 years and has has more experience and knowledge in his little finger than either me or you could hope to amass on the subject.

 

What do you disagree with about the article? I couldn't care less who wrote it, I've never even heard of the bloke before but the fact he wrote a very good article means it's a very good article, simple as that. It could say kermit the frog as far I am concerned, if I read something and it resonates with me against previous research and knowledge and sounds plausible then I tend to make a judgement based on that, I don't rush out into Google and see who wrote it and their background before coming to my conclusions. If that's the way you want to live your life and process your information then fine, crack on, don't let me stand in the way of intellectual genius.

 

Bye bye Lxxxx....

 

Eh?? Point?? Relevance??

[Slim]

Your question about what makes him more qualified than you or me to comment about this speaks volumes.

 

And your response speaks volumes about what you consider a valid source. The only place I can see him confirmed as an advisor to Thatcher are on his own bio's. In what capacity was he an advisor? Was it a relevant field, or did he advise her on what to have for breakfast? What was his appointment, was he paid, was he right, was he trusted?

 

That other loon Monkton also claims legitimacy by saying he advised Thatcher, but that's made up too.

 

What makes him qualified exactly?

[credente]

_{Anyone whose advice was taken by Thatbitcher deserves to be ignored for ever more.}

[Lxxx]

Your question about what makes him more qualified than you or me to comment about this speaks volumes.

 

And your response speaks volumes about what you consider a valid source. The only place I can see him confirmed as an advisor to Thatcher are on his own bio's. In what capacity was he an advisor? Was it a relevant field, or did he advise her on what to have for breakfast? What was his appointment, was he paid, was he right, was he trusted?

 

That other loon Monkton also claims legitimacy by saying he advised Thatcher, but that's made up too.

 

What makes him qualified exactly?

 

As I posted above, whether he is correct or not neither I nor you know. It is always good to get information from a cross section of sources, which makes you think, and then come to your own conclusions. Dismissing something as utter rubbish without so much as a valid reason is just as bad as believing something just because you have read it. Your arguments don't hold much weight, I'm not making any claims that what he is saying is spot on, my original post was that he makes some interesting points. Come back when you've got a valid point to make.

[Slim]

As I posted above, whether he is correct or not neither I nor you know. It is always good to get information from a cross section of sources, which makes you think, and then come to your own conclusions. Dismissing something as utter rubbish without so much as a valid reason is just as bad as believing something just because you have read it. Your arguments don't hold much weight, I'm not making any claims that what he is saying is spot on, my original post was that he makes some interesting points. Come back when you've got a valid point to make.

 

What is the valid point you're putting forward? You've linked the piece but not said why it's interesting, other than that you seem impressed by the speakers credentials. That's why I've responded questioning those credentials, which seem upon even light inspection to be insubstancial.

 

On the talk itself, it's like I said, just made up stuff. 'All derivatives are fraud', that's simply not true and it just goes more silly after that. Do you actually believe all that unsubstantiated nonsense about Nazi's planning a financial europe takeover 50 years ago?

[Lxxx]

As I posted above, whether he is correct or not neither I nor you know. It is always good to get information from a cross section of sources, which makes you think, and then come to your own conclusions. Dismissing something as utter rubbish without so much as a valid reason is just as bad as believing something just because you have read it. Your arguments don't hold much weight, I'm not making any claims that what he is saying is spot on, my original post was that he makes some interesting points. Come back when you've got a valid point to make.

 

What is the valid point you're putting forward? You've linked the piece but not said why it's interesting, other than that you seem impressed by the speakers credentials. That's why I've responded questioning those credentials, which seem upon even light inspection to be insubstancial.

 

On the talk itself, it's like I said, just made up stuff. 'All derivatives are fraud', that's simply not true and it just goes more silly after that. Do you actually believe all that unsubstantiated nonsense about Nazi's planning a financial europe takeover 50 years ago?

 

This really is like arguing with a child who has no comprehension of alternate views outside it's own narrow mind. Case closed.

[manxy]

Do you actually believe all that unsubstantiated nonsense about Nazi's planning a financial europe takeover 50 years ago?

I saw this site which is just another persons point of view and whether Germany is taking over Europe today, then I'm still on the fence with this one.

Is it possible or not?

[Lxxx]

Do you actually believe all that unsubstantiated nonsense about Nazi's planning a financial europe takeover 50 years ago?

I saw this site which is just another persons point of view and whether Germany is taking over Europe today, then I'm still on the fence with this one.

Is it possible or not?

 

Shush don't mention anything that forces people to think outside the box, you might be deemed a 'conspiracy theorist'. Woooo......!!!!

[Slim]

This really is like arguing with a child who has no comprehension of alternate views outside it's own narrow mind. Case closed.

 

You don't appear to be arguing. You've not actually said anything, just posted a link to a loon who you think is interesting. The only interest here is just what you consider a credible speaker, your nut job there certainly isn't. If you want to put up a robust and intelligent argument, do so, don't rely on crackpots like that.

[Lxxx]

Do you actually believe all that unsubstantiated nonsense about Nazi's planning a financial europe takeover 50 years ago?

I saw this site which is just another persons point of view and whether Germany is taking over Europe today, then I'm still on the fence with this one.

Is it possible or not?

 

Let's spin it round. What are the reasons which make this theory totally implausible, bearing in mind current events??

[Lxxx]

This really is like arguing with a child who has no comprehension of alternate views outside it's own narrow mind. Case closed.

 

You don't appear to be arguing. You've not actually said anything, just posted a link to a loon who you think is interesting. The only interest here is just what you consider a credible speaker, your nut job there certainly isn't. If you want to put up a robust and intelligent argument, do so, don't rely on crackpots like that.

 

You're totally missing the point, and making yourself look a fool in the process. You don't want to believe it? Fine, cast it aside and crack on. Others may choose to hear what he has to say, have a look at how current events are unfolding and then give it some critical thought. What's the problem?

[Slim]

You're totally missing the point, and making yourself look a fool in the process. You don't want to believe it? Fine, cast it aside and crack on. Others may choose to hear what he has to say, have a look at how current events are unfolding and then give it some critical thought. What's the problem?

 

What point?

 

My problem is you're talking shit and I disagree with you. You say that a reported $15 Trillion fraud isn't surprising, and go on to link a random loony claiming that the Nazi's working for satan have orchestrated the whole thing at the end of the 2nd world war. It's fantasy stuff.

 

As for ignoring it, this is a discussion forum. If you put something on here, prepare for it to be challenged.