Ooops! Sorry could not remember if I had posted.

ALTRAV
What's objectionable is not that you've posted the same thing twice, but that you're still so prejudiced against the Rosthschilds that you believe any of the baseless claims against them, including those that originated as Nazi propaganda.

Your prejudice has resulted in gullibility so extreme that you believe the conspiracy nuts who say the Rothschilds own and control all the world's central banks except those of the countries that America recently went, or is likely to go, to war against (despite all but one of the world's central banks actually being 100% government owned).

If you want to discuss the Rothschilds, start by renouncing the lies you've spread!

SAINTS can we consider your post from a middle ground? what are you saying about people like me who think they know, anti global warming is indeed a conspiracy?
We think it is just that,on behalf of the owners of fossil fuel
The owners of millions of petrol stations around this world
A conspiracy that needs, and has achieved, to see people like you fight for it,while ignoring the science, and taking the bait, they hung in front of you
Some conspiracies are too silly to believe but believe some always will
SAINTS one side, do the maths, is wrong, you claim it is mine, I think I know it is yours
Think about the truly massive implications of action to stall climate change on coal and all current fossil fuels and the infrastructure used by it
You will find reason some want it to be untrue

Aiden if you care to read first and comment later, I did appologise as I did not intend posting twice, not my usual style.
I forgot I had already posted, did not know it would actually do it again as I thought the system was designed to recognise the posting and therefore reject it the second time.
What IS really objectionable is YOUR attitude that you know best and all the info out there about this filthy criminal family are wrong, but you are right.
Since when did you join the Rothschild family or the Bilderburg Group to put yourself up as an authority on this sick lot.
Oh and BTW I DO have evidence and proof of what I speak.
What do you have to back your baseless rebuttal?

Aiden no response is the best way around diatribes
Truly Thought we could get right in to both sides of this discussion but seems not to be
Would have liked to see well constructed way around world trade and our economy surviving outside it
Globalisation? enough in that to keep us going, try to do better next subject

ATRAV,

>Aiden if you care to read first and comment later, I did appologise as I did not intend posting twice
Duh! I was responding to your apology!

>What IS really objectionable is YOUR attitude that you know best and all the info out
>there about this filthy criminal family are wrong, but you are right.
If you were willing to look at real evidence rather than nutty conspiracy websites, you'd probably reach the same conclusions I do.

As it is, you refer to "this filthy criminal family" without a shred of evidence of actual criminality.

>Since when did you join the Rothschild family or the Bilderburg Group to put yourself up as an authority on this sick lot
Since when did you do so?

I'm not an expert on the Rothschilds nor the Bilderberg Group, and never claimed to be. I do know considerably more about them than you do, though, as I get my evidence from reputable sources, whereas you treat the words of conspiracy bloggers as evidence!

Do you understand and accept that the Nazis made up lies about the Rothschilds in order to stir up public sentiment against Jews?

Do you understand that there are a lot of lies out there, and spotting truth is something that cant' just be done based on feelings?

On a previous thread I challenged you to identify the source of your claim that the Rothschilds fooled the British into thinking they'd lost the Battle of Waterloo (when all the reputable sources say they'd actually informed the British of the win). You responded with the lie that Google could answer my question.

As I said, it's your lies you should apologise for, not your recent repetition.