Shape shifting alien reptiles

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It doesnt come down to whatever material sh1t you think you are blessed with, it come down to being born into debt or not. Pre income tax = less debt and post income tax = more debt = slavery, If you are born into debt, it is considered slavery if you have to work 65-70 years to pay it off, it certainly isnt considered freedom. When you consider that society does not even need money, you begin to see the system for what it is. Enslavement.



You made no points. none at all.
Replied to K9, Happy now ?



What service is that ?

These questions are better off asked on the GOV, GARDAI private company thread.

PS. I do agree with your general point, just be careful of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You miss what you have till it's gone!

Yitzhak Rabin

amacachi wrote: »

Taxes are ridiculous. Pensions are the one stand-out example of something that if anyone else did it they'd be prosecuted, but it's OK when the government does it. It's a pyramid scheme, nothing more or less. The state shouldn't exist to provide every service people need, it should exist to allow people to provide those services.

What about someone who can't afford one? The reason the government provide it, is so that well off people can subsidise poorer people.( I'm talking about the OAP and not state job pensions)

(Maybe a mod could splice the last few posts into the other thread about the state and taxes. I just copped that this is the reptile thread.)

amacachi

yekahs wrote: »

What about someone who can't afford one? The reason the government provide it, is so that well off people can subsidise poorer people.( I'm talking about the OAP and not state job pensions)

(Maybe a mod could splice the last few posts into the other thread about the state and taxes. I just copped that this is the reptile thread.)

Tough. And yes, that is the extent of my argument. :P

mugs1

amacachi wrote: »

Taxes are ridiculous. Pensions are the one stand-out example of something that if anyone else did it they'd be prosecuted, but it's OK when the government does it. It's a pyramid scheme, nothing more or less. The state shouldn't exist to provide every service people need, it should exist to allow people to provide those services.

The idea of taxes i think is a good one in theory, (just like communism LOL) a debate for another day... the problem is miss managment by the goons in power,

I will lose my job in a few weeks and with 3 kids, I am certainly happy i don't live in the 17th century!!!

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

Oh, I do see your point.


Anyway getting back to your society was better before statement. Maybr, but who would pay for the Hospitals, schools and the longer life expectancy?

You see my point, then you don't.

So, slavery is ok to a degree if it pays for hospitals ?

This is a shape ****fting reptillian thread , I don't feel comfortable discussing this here but if there are no complaints I'll continue lol...

The monetary system is an illusion.

Money, they print it, profit from it, loan it and you're children will pay back that loan. Again, that's slavery

If there is a certain amout of money printed.
When you borrow you have to pay interest right ? car, house etc..
How can more be paid back that is actually in circulation ? it can't

You're taxes don't pay for hospitals, cant they print money and build more hospitals ? It's based on the working power/the energy of the people in a particuliar region..

And do you think by working and paying taxes the world will eventually improve ? one day all humans will be above the poverty level ?

The whole point of this monetary/governmental/power structure is to keep things the way they are, they need people sick, poor, rich.. they need a divide.

Are things better in Africa now that the 1st world is more developed ? no it's worse, much worse and it doesn't come down to the manmade aids virus alone, it got worse the greedy power money hungry western man settled there, it's the same all over the world.

"what about hospitals" ? will you ever wake up !! you want to continue in this direction ? do you think it will get bet better or worse ? To build more hospitals in this system you have to work more, pay more taxes, more stupid laws will come into place and you will be fined for farting and you become more enslaved.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin

EDIT:
I wouldn't usually quote a movie but this fits so well..

There's a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.

Bring on the f*cking revolution !!!!!!! 17th july - GPO

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You see my point, then you don't.

So, slavery is ok to a degree if it pays for hospitals ?

This is a shape ****fting reptillian thread , I don't feel comfortable discussing this here but if there are no complaints I'll continue lol...

The monetary system is an illusion.

Money, they print it, profit from it, loan it and you're children will pay back that loan. Again, that's slavery

If there is a certain amout of money printed.
When you borrow you have to pay interest right ? car, house etc..
How can more be paid back that is actually in circulation ? it can't

You're taxes don't pay for hospitals, cant they print money and build more hospitals ? It's based on the working power/the energy of the people in a particuliar region..

And do you think by working and paying taxes the world will eventually improve ? one day all humans will be above the poverty level ?

The whole point of this monetary/governmental/power structure is to keep things the way they are, they need people sick, poor, rich.. they need a divide.

Are things better in Africa now that the 1st world is more developed ? no it's worse, much worse and it doesn't come down to the manmade aids virus alone, it got worse the greedy power money hungry western man settled there, it's the same all over the world.

"what about hospitals" ? will you ever wake up !! you want to continue in this direction ? do you think it will get bet better or worse ? To build more hospitals in this system you have to work more, pay more taxes, more stupid laws will come into place and you will be fined for farting and you become more enslaved.

Sorry, I asked you a specific question in response to this:

TalkieWalkie wrote:

People got on fine pre income tax days.

No, it's not better.

Can you respond directly to that?

Can you list exactly how we were better of pre Income Tax days?

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Are things better in Africa now that the 1st world is more developed ? no it's worse, much worse and it doesn't come down to the manmade aids virus alone, it got worse the greedy power money hungry western man settled there, it's the same all over the world.

Greed and the search for power corrupts, no doubt. Africa is no different to anywhere else in that regard.

TalkieWalkie

yekahs wrote: »

What about someone who can't afford one? The reason the government provide it, is so that well off people can subsidise poorer people.( I'm talking about the OAP and not state job pensions)

(Maybe a mod could splice the last few posts into the other thread about the state and taxes. I just copped that this is the reptile thread.)

No !! you're countrymen provide it, you're brothers and sisters, everyone gets looked after, the government take thier cut

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, I asked you a specific question in response to this:



Can you respond directly to that?

Can you list exactly how we were better of pre Income Tax days?

I have replied to that. Read up.

EDIT:

Pre income tax = less debt and post income tax = more debt = slavery, If you are born into debt, it is considered slavery if you have to work 65-70 years to pay it off, it certainly isnt considered freedom.

It's better to be free..

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I have replied to that. Read up.

EDIT:


It's better to be free..

Ok. You don't see the advantages of what taxes have brought us, compared to the 1700's?

No Advantages whatsoever?

Debt to me is a different issue.

We had less debt in 2000 than 1987, how do you explain that?

mugs1

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You see my point, then you don't.

So, slavery is ok to a degree if it pays for hospitals ?

This is a shape ****fting reptillian thread , I don't feel comfortable discussing this here but if there are no complaints I'll continue lol...

The monetary system is an illusion.

Money, they print it, profit from it, loan it and you're children will pay back that loan. Again, that's slavery

If there is a certain amout of money printed.
When you borrow you have to pay interest right ? car, house etc..
How can more be paid back that is actually in circulation ? it can't

You're taxes don't pay for hospitals, cant they print money and build more hospitals ? It's based on the working power/the energy of the people in a particuliar region..

And do you think by working and paying taxes the world will eventually improve ? one day all humans will be above the poverty level ?

The whole point of this monetary/governmental/power structure is to keep things the way they are, they need people sick, poor, rich.. they need a divide.

Are things better in Africa now that the 1st world is more developed ? no it's worse, much worse and it doesn't come down to the manmade aids virus alone, it got worse the greedy power money hungry western man settled there, it's the same all over the world.

"what about hospitals" ? will you ever wake up !! you want to continue in this direction ? do you think it will get bet better or worse ? To build more hospitals in this system you have to work more, pay more taxes, more stupid laws will come into place and you will be fined for farting and you become more enslaved.

Holy S***e that just makes no sense what so ever, but your tryin fair play...

Now I as said earlier and as did other people.. I made some counter points earlier in the thread that i also refered to in earlier posts... however i still haven't recieved a response.

Can you.... please address them individually point by point please, with real answers and valid points.

Now take your time no rush do some research if you need

thanks,

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

Ok. You don't see the advantages of what taxes have brought us, compared to the 1700's?

No Advantages whatsoever?

Debt to me is a different issue.

We had less debt in 2000 than 1987, how do you explain that?

And what of 2000 till now ? how do YOU explain that ?

themorrigan

How ODD!

I obviously wandered here by mistake - the title was something about shape shifting alien reptiles but it appears to be post about ... taxes?

TalkieWalkie

Here ya go, not the first time i posted this clip.

This is what has happened, less so in Ireland but if america sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold as they say..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKVNgfhc8oM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5rNatVN08U

youtube.. America, freedom to fascism. Aaron Russo interview

for other parts

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

And what of 2000 till now ? how do YOU explain that ?

Yep, your thread explains that, the part I'm in agreement with.

Now, care to explain the 1987-2000 23 year period were taxes reduced and debt reduced?

mugs1

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here ya go, not the first time i posted this clip.

This is what has happened, less so in Ireland but if america sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold as they say..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKVNgfhc8oM

Do we need to list the counter points that were made earlier that you failed to address.. so you can answer them!!!!

And once you answer them.. we might consider your new video evidence!!

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, your thread explains that, the part I'm in agreement with.

Now, care to explain the 1987-2000 23 year period were taxes reduced and debt reduced?

That came with the illusion of the celtic tiger. You have to know what more is to experience less. It's a game. What happened next ? Lisbon treaty.

It's pretty much self explanitory.

TalkieWalkie

mugs1 wrote: »

Do we need to list the counter points that were made earlier that you failed to address.. so you can answer them!!!!

And once you answer them.. we might consider your new video evidence!!

I aint reading back through all that, list them and i'll do my best

mugs1

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I aint reading back through all that, list them and i'll do my best

Gee, thanks..

Maybe if you read it the first time you wouldn't have to

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

That came with the illusion of the celtic tiger. You have to know what more is to experience less. It's a game. What happened next ? Lisbon treaty.

It's pretty much self explanitory.

Well, 1987-1995 or so, wasn't Celtic Tiger. There were huge reductions in Income Taxes and debt. Explain that? You seem to be evading my point. Taxes can be reduced and lead to less debt.

Lisbon had nothing to with that period.

Torakx

Wouldnt that sound more like the run up to the "celtic tiger"?
We go up...we go down..we go up..etc etc

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

Well, 1987-1995 or so, wasn't Celtic Tiger. There were huge reductions in Income Taxes and debt. Explain that? You seem to be evading my point. Taxes can be reduced and lead to less debt.

Lisbon had nothing to with that period.

Ok, i'm at a loss, what exactly is it i'm missing ?
Whats so special about those 7 years that I need to know ?

Will it debunk my theory ?

K-9

Torakx wrote: »

Wouldnt that sound more like the run up to the "celtic tiger"?
We go up...we go down..we go up..etc etc

No, we were always down.

We discovered borrowing from the mid 70's on and splurged, to such an extent we were nearly bankrupt come 86/87.

We had taxes of about 35-65% + PRSI.

We then cut taxes, but amazingly cut the huge Debt. It goes against the general point in this thread.

Yep, we fecked it up in the last 10 years, but, reducing taxes and debt meant we were in a very good position in 2000. Unfortunately, we reverted to type again and based the last decade on selling houses and cars to each other model.*

*Rather simplistic, but you get my point.

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

No, we were always down.

We discovered borrowing from the mid 70's on and splurged, to such an extent we were nearly bankrupt come 86/87.

We had taxes of about 35-65% + PRSI.

We then cut taxes, but amazingly cut the huge Debt. It goes against the general point in this thread.

Yep, we fecked it up in the last 10 years, but, reducing taxes and debt meant we were in a very good position in 2000. Unfortunately, we reverted to type again and based the last decade on selling houses and cars to each other model.*

*Rather simplistic, but you get my point.

And do you propose it all happened by accident ?

Just random stuff right ?

Ok, we bail the banks out. But who do the banks owe the money to ? It most likely goes to the wonderful queen of England. If not, it goes to some rich banker who attends the buiderberg meetings. Maybe you know where it goes ?

Does it sound like the actions of someone who wants to help out humanity ?

I mean, who would rather have that money and see whole countries/ continents suffer ?

EDIT:

Might I add, whoever it is, it sounds to me like you are on their side, defending them.

TalkieWalkie

themorrigan wrote: »

How ODD!

I obviously wandered here by mistake - the title was something about shape shifting alien reptiles but it appears to be post about ... taxes?

Here ya go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i_Cxq2z5qk

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

And do you propose it all happened by accident ?

Just random stuff right ?

Ok, we bail the banks out. But who do the banks owe the money to ? It most likely goes to the wonderful queen of England. If not, it goes to some rich banker who attends the buiderberg meetings. Maybe you know where it goes ?

Does it sound like the actions of someone who wants to help out humanity ?

I mean, who would rather have that money and see whole countries/ continents suffer ?

EDIT:

Might I add, whoever it is, it sounds to me like you are on their side, defending them.

You still aren't addressing my point which was in direct response to your claims. Why is that?

I can address your point. We did not have to be in the state we are in, nor indeed have the response we did.

Other countries didn't have the same problems, Canada eg. Others learned from previous bubbles, Sweden eg.

Now, could you be so kind and answer my question I have asked a few times at this stage. How come we were ok in 2000 but fecked 10 years later, yet other countries are relatively ok?

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

You still aren't addressing my point which was in direct response to your claims. Why is that?

I can address your point. We did not have to be in the state we are in, nor indeed have the response we did.

Other countries didn't have the same problems, Canada eg. Others learned from previous bubbles, Sweden eg.

Now, could you be so kind and answer my question I have asked a few times at this stage. How come we were ok in 2000 but fecked 10 years later, yet other countries are relatively ok?

Ok mate, you keep asking me to answer questions I have answered, but i'll answer it again.
The reason we were ok in 2000 but fecked 10 years later, yet other countries are relatively ok? is because it's done by design. Someone thought it would be a good idea to do it that way for whatever reason and thats the way it played out. Thats my opinion. It doesn't come from the top, it's not an insight, it's just my common sense coming into play.

What Torax said.. up we go, down we go.

What does it matter ? Payday is on the 25th of every month, i eat better for the next 2 weeks than the 2 after. What are you getting at ?

If you have something to say on the matter, please do..

mugs1

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

EDIT:

Might I add, whoever it is, it sounds to me like you are on their side, defending them.

No he just offered a counter point no need for that!!!

TalkieWalkie

mugs1 wrote: »

No he just offered a counter point no need for that!!!

Fair enough. Apologies K9

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ok mate, you keep asking me to answer questions I have answered, but i'll answer it again.
The reason we were ok in 2000 but fecked 10 years later, yet other countries are relatively ok? is because it's done by design. Someone thought it would be a good idea to do it that way for whatever reason and thats the way it played out. Thats my opinion. It doesn't come from the top, it's not an insight, it's just my common sense coming into play.

What Torax said.. up we go, down we go.

What does it matter ? Payday is on the 25th of every month, i eat better for the next 2 weeks than the 2 after. What are you getting at ?

If you have something to say on the matter, please do..

Well, we should all move to Canada then, lucky sods.

Suppose we could all go back to the 1700's as I'm sure it was perfect then.

Dying to know what was so great then though, before I get in my Tardis!

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

Well, we should all move to Canada then, lucky sods.

Suppose we could all go back to the 1700's as I'm sure it was perfect then.

Dying to know what was so great then though, before I get in my Tardis!

Well, I doubt either of the above would help, that would only patch up the situation imo. The system needs to crash, it cant sustain itself, it never could.

I would recommend storing some dry food away for a rainy day or months, perhaps a few gas masks too lol.

Seriously though, seriously :eek:

amacachi

K-9 wrote: »

No, we were always down.

We discovered borrowing from the mid 70's on and splurged, to such an extent we were nearly bankrupt come 86/87.

We had taxes of about 35-65% + PRSI.

We then cut taxes, but amazingly cut the huge Debt. It goes against the general point in this thread.

Yep, we fecked it up in the last 10 years, but, reducing taxes and debt meant we were in a very good position in 2000. Unfortunately, we reverted to type again and based the last decade on selling houses and cars to each other model.*

*Rather simplistic, but you get my point.

Did the tax take rise or fall with those rises? Was spending cut? I know you're not an idiot so have to assume you're being purposely disingenuous.

Yitzhak Rabin

amacachi wrote: »

Did the tax take rise or fall with those rises? Was spending cut? I know you're not an idiot so have to assume you're being purposely disingenuous.

Corporate tax was lowered to one of the the lowest in the world(12.5%). As a result lots of MNC(Multinational corporations) arrived creating employement, which lead to a larger tax take as PAYE workers are on a much higher scale(35-50%). This meant we were taking in far more tax despite having lower rates. Therefore we borrowed less.

K-9

amacachi wrote: »

Did the tax take rise or fall with those rises? Was spending cut? I know you're not an idiot so have to assume you're being purposely disingenuous.

What rises? I was talking about tax cuts during the 87-2000 period.

Spending was cut initially but increased after a few years.

NckD

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here ya go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i_Cxq2z5qk

What a video! Couldnt they shove some 9/11 or Swine flu stuff in there?

tallus

NckD wrote: »

What a video! Couldnt they shove some 9/11 or Swine flu stuff in there?

The giant skeletons looked cool.

Can anyone shed light on their authenticity ?

TalkieWalkie

NckD wrote: »

What a video! Couldnt they shove some 9/11 or Swine flu stuff in there?

They could, they could shove it somewhere else too

amacachi

yekahs wrote: »

Corporate tax was lowered to one of the the lowest in the world(12.5%). As a result lots of MNC(Multinational corporations) arrived creating employement, which lead to a larger tax take as PAYE workers are on a much higher scale(35-50%). This meant we were taking in far more tax despite having lower rates. Therefore we borrowed less.

K-9 wrote: »

What rises? I was talking about tax cuts during the 87-2000 period.

Spending was cut initially but increased after a few years.

Apologies, I meant cuts. And as the above quote shows, which you knew, a cut in the headline rate of tax can lead to increased tax take, which happened, and spending was cut. Lower taxes (but increased receipts) and less spending led to an improvement in the economy and in debt. Course then we decided to once again increase spending massively, not on one-off costs but on wages and SW which was a ****ing retarded idea.

TalkieWalkie

tallus wrote: »

The giant skeletons looked cool.

Can anyone shed light on their authenticity ?

They are reportedly called the Nephilim.

Som pics from google images, i have no clue as to their authenticity.

















Debunked

tallus

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

They are reportedly called the Nephilim.

Som pics from google images, i have no clue as to their authenticity.

Cheers Talkie.

I think I'll do a bit of looking into this subject, it's extremly interesting.

TalkieWalkie

tallus wrote: »

Cheers Talkie.

I think I'll do a bit of looking into this subject, it's extremly intereting.

You're welcome, let us know of you're findings

tallus

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You're welcome, let us know of you're findings

Will do

fontanalis

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You're welcome, let us know of you're findings

Looks like a giant hoax.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

TalkieWalkie

fontanalis wrote: »

Looks like a giant hoax.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

Yeah, maybe. I use photoshop quite a bit, I could easily make one of these pics.

tallus

It was nice while it lasted

caseyann

I dont understand why they say it is physically impossible for them to have existed,dinosaurs existed.
Or maybe they didnt.

humanji

caseyann wrote: »

I dont understand why they say it is physically impossible for them to have existed,dinosaurs existed.
Or maybe they didnt.

I'm not 100% on it, but I think they're referring to the fact that you can't just double the size of a human and have a giant. The bone density has to increase for one and the bones in the pictures wouldn't be strong enough to support a body of that size. I think that's what they mean. I read up on the square-cube law thing that's meant to explain it, but it's a bit advanced for me.

Ash.J.Williams

I've been watching the antics of Henry Sheflin recently, i'm 100% sure he is a shapeshifting alien reptile. Any else spot any GAA reptilians? I'm pretty sure Gooch Cooper is too. They really are infiltrating everywhere.

mysterious

humanji wrote: »

I'm not 100% on it, but I think they're referring to the fact that you can't just double the size of a human and have a giant. The bone density has to increase for one and the bones in the pictures wouldn't be strong enough to support a body of that size. I think that's what they mean. I read up on the square-cube law thing that's meant to explain it, but it's a bit advanced for me.

Reality isn't linear and not eveything is a rock you know. Energy can manifest into anything form. This world is a hologram.

Torakx

mysterious wrote: »

Reality isn't linear and not eveything is a rock you know. Energy can manifest into anything form. This world is a hologram.

I was watching a vid on fractals and a guys theory that within every atom even our bodies is a tiny tiny tiny black hole(maybe why we get old?),he proceeded to show how this could be possible with physics and other theories.It was pretty interesting and got me thinking about alot of other connections.
Like Ickes lectures on his theory of the matrix and a holographic universe.
What makes me curious is what is on the other side of all those black holes.
Is that "heaven"? Or are we another consciousness on the other side?
Maybe an alien lifeform visits us from that place too ^^
I dont believe all this but its fun to consider it anyway.