Sanssouci

Not to defend the "goorooz," but what you say here is no different with the media, and what any one given "legit news source" calls "the truth."

Or a belief absent of some hypothetical CBI financials. Das ist Verboten.

All right, so, we differ on a matter of opinion. Why don't you just admit that at the beginning of an exchange? It would save a lot grief.

If you cannot reconcile this in your own mind, then, yes, you are a hypocrite, or perhaps just a fool, because you refuse to doubt the media, and, through that conduit, anything you call "the truth" at one minute can be negated by something else you call "the truth" the next.

There it went, right over your head, once again. Let me help you, Dave. H-I-S-T-O-R-I-C-A-L P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T. Because there is already plenty of that here, maybe? You RD "goorooz" are like reverse pumpers, and most of what I see you receiving is thanks for keeping us all so "grounded." BS. You guys, whether you're being paid or not, are working the opposite end, along with the "goorooz," against the middle. You're all part of the same disinformation campaign, whether you like it or not, and whether you know it or not. You're not much for mental exercise, are you? What renders an article "legit?" The Soviets had Pravda, which means "truth," in Russian. No one would seriously argue that Pravda was propaganda, which can be the use of truth as well as lies, but notice that the newspaper was not called "Truth and Lies," in Russian, because that would be the whole truth, and the Soviets could not have that. The "truth" is what the Soviets said was the truth. Likewise, what I am saying is that practically any "legit news service" is always open to doubt. "The truth" could be simply what they say is "the truth." If you cannot reconcile this in your own mind, then, yes, you are a hypocrite, because anything you call "the truth" at one minute can be negated by something else you call "the truth" the next.

I so love pith! +1 You're a legend in your room. You need to get a life.

The Third Reich ended in 1945, David. I did not link the entire Arab press to Joseph Goebbels. You completely missed the point if that's what you think you read. Historical precedent is your foundational belief for an Iraq RD, and yet think you can pick and choose as to when and when to not apply it elsewhere. You are a hypocrite in that regard.

You are a Zionist yourself, which gives me ample reason to respond to you as I do. 20million makes excellent points, based upon his knowledge, and does not in desperation descend into ad hominem hell. I'll get down into the mud once in a while, just because it can be fun, but therein lie the difference between you, me, admittedly, and true gentlemen like 20million.

Uh, we're told to believe that Dr. Joseph Goebbels oversaw a similarly controlled information stream in Germany. You believe that, don't you? You're the one who relies so strongly upon historical precedent. So, why is it so hard for you to believe now, in another part of the world, Di(***)ck? Seetrader: Either IDIOT, or SHILL. Which are you? Of course, we know that the RD crowd knows everything, so great is their following. Ah, there's the rub. I don't know much about Steve, but it's obvious that SHILLtrader resents being locked out.

That's only because I could never log in at home. I used the same name and password, but the site would always reject me. I inquired with the administrators, but never received a sufficient reply or remedy. At least I called it Sanssouci2 to avoid any confusion as to it being the same poster. It's nothing more untoward than that.

You make a good point. Re: DaveD's response to me about the Deutsche Mark, Deutsche Bundesbank was not as presumably irresponsible as has been Iraq in printing a gross excess of paper money.

It's all about simply being right for him anyway. Funny, I almost did that very thing last year. He can read an article verbatim. Anyone can do that. Sorry, it fails to impress.

Really? You have your very own golf course?

As I have said, even though I do not believe the CBI is telling the truth, they will be forgiven. Assuming the IMF is truly serious about financial wrongdoing, and not in on a kind of deal with the CBI, what would the IMF do if wrongdoing were discovered and truthfully reported in the media?

RD crowd: Why do you insist upon a past example of a massive RV? How in the world do you think history is actually made? Di(nar)ck: While the Soviet Union had conducted its own various show trials, the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany was the first of its kind in history. Perhaps it never really was there. Wouldn't that be a stunning revelation?

Yeah, a solid shade of red. And they call me the definition of insanity.

I was merely trying to keep the discussion on topic. Di(nar)ck goes off on these irrelevant tangents, and then complains that the thread is off topic. He can't make up his mind what he wants. A good one I heard recently is: If we have found evidence for its existence, why are we still calling it the "God particle?"

I did not say massive. You did. And I was actually alluding to information in general being suppressed by the media. Forgot to take your Ritalin again?

Wait, are you not the one that thought putting the losers of a war on trial had occurred all throughout history? I believe you are! The point is that your grasp of history is not quite what you think it is. And the relevance of the point concerns the changes to the Deutsche Mark, introduced following World War II. No, there was not a 100,000% increase in value there, but the situation is very similar to that of Iraq. Besides, I have never confirmed to you or anyone exactly what I believe will happen regarding an RV of the Iraqi dinar. Save your straw man arguments for someone else. No, I wish. I should come out with a pile of cash regardless. So, you do not believe such information can be suppressed?

Well, you know, I can't just let Keep and the other Fabulosos rule the roost.

Fair enough. At least I won't have to bring this up with my lawyer tomorrow. By coincidence, I am meeting with her about another matter completely.

Asking me if I have registered as a sex offender implies that you believe I am, and that I simply haven't registered. Quote: "Did you register as a sex offender?? your continued refence of a sex offender is troubling our members." I lampooned your screen name, that is all. I retract having done that. Your query to me holds more merit, should I choose to counteract. I have retracted my statement. Now, you retract your query. According to your always trustworthy media. 'Round and 'round we go...

Let the record show that "sandstorm" is not "Sandusky-storm." But asking me if I have registered as a sex offender implies that you believe I am, and that I simply haven't registered. You may make your retraction now. I retracted my statement in this forum. Now, you do the same.

Do you really think they would ever put out RV articles?

So have you. You asked me: "Have you registered as a sex offender?" You also said: "better watch what may become evidence. ps. Calling someone or referring to someone as a sex offender publicly.....gives a lot of merit to a lawsuit." Read more: I'll retract my play on your screen name after you retract your question to me: "Have you registered as a sex offender?" Sound fair?