Ha, Ha. Welcome to planet 'Let's Change the Thread Title Three Times, Throw Sand In Everyone's Face and Run Away'.

Fancy addressing the subject originally proposed by you in this thread?

So what is Stormfront Forums' equivalent of Godwin's Law? What do they say to end a thread? Winston Churchill? Dresden Firebombing? Yalta Conference? Do they Skrewdriver threads instead of Slinting them?

lemur68 wrote:So what is Stormfront Forums' equivalent of Godwin's Law?

Gandhing.

Rick Reuben wrote:I am awe-struck by the advances in mind control that must be responsible for any babbling fool who charts that course of 'I have no opinion'. Talk about people who are scared shitless of facing the truth- Cranius, Simmo, antero, Uncle Ovipositor, honeyisfunny, johnnyshape, the other clones- these are people who have reached such depths of brainwashed servitude to the pig system, they defend the biggest thieves on the planet, pro bono. These are idiots so dumb and cowardly, if they lived on a pizza, they'd refuse to have an opinion on the tomato sauce . 'Indifference to banking'. Give me a break.

Oi. Dunno about anyone else, but I've never written a single word concerning banking on this board or anywhere else, let alone expressed indifference. I've read with interest a lot of the stuff you've posted about it.

I have previously pointed out that you duck direct difficult questions. Just as you are doing now. And that, apparently, seems to be the thing that really gets on your tits.

I'm still disappointed that there are no pictures of hott zygote cleavage.

Rick Reuben wrote:Everybody on Stormfront who tells the truth about the Federal Reserve is doing the Lord's work. They are using their right to free speech beautifully. God bless their courage in the face of censors and thought nazis. Amen.

Wait, I thought they were pro-nazi

If I find myself arm-in-arm with bastards on any issue, I make it my first obligation to unlink my arms from them. I will not become strange bedfellows with anyone.

Don't get me wrong, other people I disagree with may agree with me on an issue or two (like Ron Paul, for example), but I will not throw my lot in with fools and evil motherfuckers (like Stormfront or even Ron Paul) just because I happen to agree with them on the odd specific issue.

General evil outweighs specific good.

Rick, It's obvious you think the basis of our money and the structure of the banks that hold it are the most important considerations in public life. You also think taxing income is bad and some crazy bullshit about it being unconstitutional.

Assume for a moment that I think other things are more important -- increased funding for public schools, federal protection for womens' reproductive rights, improved public health care, an enforceable national living wage, survival of the Social Security benefit, more general aid for poor people, increased funding for pure science research of no immediate commercial value, preservation of publicly-held wilderness, and systematic movement toward a general and universal public health care system.

All of those things are in direct opposition to what Ron Paul and his fellows want, and they are much more important to me than whether or not my dollar bills are worth a specific amount of metal powder. I am happy to pay taxes to support these things, and I think income tax is a fine way to tax me.

Do you see why shouting about the banks and taxes will have no effect on me? Do you see why it has no effect on most of the people who disagree with Ron Paul?

Who (or what) backs the money is of trivial interest as long as it is accepted when tendered. Its value changes over time, so what. I can convert it into tangible goods (or another currency) and back again easily, fixing its real value at any point I choose.

I am indifferent about the banks.

Rick Reuben wrote:...future events will validate every unpopular stance I have taken.

Come off it, Bob.

Only a supreme lunatic would think he's right about everything.

You are completely missing the point, Bob. And you are wrong.

Sometimes a person will engage in discussion or state her opinions in order to put her ideas about life to the test, in order to put them out into the world and see what they're made of. It's possible (and quite common) to hold strong opinions about any number of subjects but also understand that some of these opinions are not conclusive-- that they are only true in so far as the person in question can tell, but she may lack certain key information or a vantage point that would put everything into a coherent, enlightened perspective.

Many people are unresolved about any number of issues. Sometimes a person may feel one way about something one day and differently about it the next. He can't be "entirely right" in both instances and yet in neither case is he being dishonest. It's a strawman argument to say that anyone who doesn't think he's right all the time is a liar.

More to the point, an honest person presents their opinion as such, for though they believe their opinion sufficiently accurate as to be worth holding, they remain cognizant of the limitations of knowledge and base human weakness. The honest person is also aware of the limits imposed by the word "opinion," which inherently defies absolutism.

Rick is not an honest person.