So you're telling me that Santa and the Rothschilds are in cahoots. I knew it.

/u/iscuck_bot a_shill

Feel free to point out which one of those posts your bot friend uncovers makes me akin to a "child rapist".

If you're covering for the crimes of the Rothschilds, you're aiding and abetting not only child rape, but mass murder. Time to make some decisions, kiddo.

Regardless of whatever this particular family may or may not have done, there is no evidence to suggest that they own the world's banks. To suggest that they do is pointless, even if they may be guilty of other things.

If someone said "George Bush owns the Federal Reserve," I would likewise point out that this is a statement that cannot be supported by fact. Regardless of the fact that I believe Bush should have been tried for war crimes at least and crimes against humanity at most, pushing a known fallacy is not going to further that notion.

Tryin to save your neck. Literally. Remember me when the time comes.

Trying to save my neck by trying to defend the spread of known disinformation?

I'm confused.

Keep playin dumb. Banking/blockchain records will clarify everything.

But hey I'm just a guy on the internet.

Keep not providing any factual information whatsoever that supports your argument, guy on the internet.

Make some decisions dude.

I have. For example, I've decided that statements of fact that cannot be supported by evidence deserve to be questioned.

I'd encourage everyone, including you, to make the same decision.

Just doing your job. Just following orders...

And you're just copping out.

You want to make your argument? Provide some evidence to support it.

Don't sit there and accuse me of being something I'm not simply because you can't or won't make an argument for your case. That's a bullshit copout, and you know it.

If you disagree with me, prove me wrong, as I've been inviting you to do. Don't sling bullshit.

If you believe something is true, you should be able to provide a factual basis for it. How many facts have you provided to support your idea? Zero.

Why would you believe something you have no evidence for, and that you blatantly refuse to find evidence for?

If you're afraid to question your own beliefs, just admit it and this conversation will be over. But don't sit there and infer that I'm something I'm not simply because you're not honest enough with yourself to admit to the possibility that you might be wrong.

My "idea" is that you're working for some people that you ought to reconsider working for. And that you're committing crimes that you should be ashamed of.

This is not a court. This is just my idea. With more evidence -- e.g., banking and/or blockchain records -- it'll be easy to prove.

Again, I'm just a guy on the internet, tryin to look out for you. This is not a game.

/u/iscuck_bot a_shill

So you think I'm an actual shill? Here you go, post some evidence to support your argument.

(Just be careful in doing so, as I have to link it in no participation mode, so don't comment directly from the link I've provided or reddit might get angry or something... Not sure how that works.)

Yep.

Get 'em Skeeter!

Get Git 'em Skeeter!

Continue to provide no evidence to support your argument Skeeter!

FTFY

[deleted]

And I'd invite anyone to actually read a few of the the comments I've made on TopMinds. Feel free to point out just how shill-like these comments are.

I did, this guy is good people. /u/a_shill seems like a genuine and good person.

Seriously, read his posts.

[deleted]

Fair enough. Continue your irrational "guilty by association" prejudice.

[deleted]

Sorry. It seemed to be implied. That other dude has literally compared me to a child rapist because of my name, so my dander is up a bit.

[deleted]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

By putting "guilty by association" in quotation marks, I'm referencing a specific logical fallacy. Much as one of the examples on your linked page puts Robert Frost's "Design" in quotes.

I wasn't implying that you literally said "guilty by association," I was stating that it was implied by your previous post. If it wasn't implied, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

If it was implied, then you certainly are using a "guilty by association" logical fallacy and the original comment is valid.

[deleted]

Because, obviously, everyone who comments there is a terrible person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Modern_businesses.2C_investments_and_philanthropy

o.0

Could you point out where in there it says that the Rothschilds own any of these banks and the Claus Regime does not?

So Rothschild and Santa families are the same!!! Holy shot no wonder the keep lists of children and invade their homes every year!!

Rule 5. No trolling. Removed.

If this is trolling, then why isn't it trolling to make the same claim based on the same evidence and another group?

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Wasn't off topic, as making this claim about other groups is OK.

Not extraneous, as again, it's no less relevant than similar claims.

Wasn't any more inflammatory than suggesting the same of another group.

Perhaps add "don't use humor to illustrate a point we don't like" to the rules in the sidebar, because that's all this post was guilty of.

And I'm pretty sure I reported that other link we discussed elsewhere myself. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I did, as the topic is hidden from me. But reporting doesn't seem to be particularly effective around these parts lately, as you guys will remove one reported thing, yet leave 2 others in the same thread intact.

I did, this guy is good people. /u/a_shill seems like a genuine and good person.

Seriously, read his posts.

So you think I'm an actual shill? Here you go, post some evidence to support your argument.

(Just be careful in doing so, as I have to link it in no participation mode, so don't comment directly from the link I've provided or reddit might get angry or something... Not sure how that works.)