You Know, what a clown

by Cygnus 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Cygnus

  I see You Know is back. I haven't been keeping up with the boards in some time, but I see that Robert is still here, trying to support his rather unique blend of LaRouche/Rutherfordian end-time predictions.

  Well, I happened across the thread between YK and Amazing, and I noticed that YK once again had his facts in error. He said that LaRouche got 25% of the Democratic primary vote in Arkansas in 2000. I assume he meant 2000, because LaRouche wasn't close to 25% in 1996. Well, the fact is that LaRouche only got 21.53% of the primary vote in Arkansas in 2000. Is that such a big number so as to make LaRouche a real, viable candidate? Not at all. For Alan Keyes received 19.77% percent of the Republican vote in that state's primary. Rather close numerically to LaRouche, and against the man who eventually won the election. Keyes, like LaRouche, never had a chance at winning the nomination. Keyes got more airtime, sure, but states such as Michigan announced LaRouche's candidacicy as invalid based on his felony conviction, so LarRouche was never a player from the start.

  When I heard YK was back posting, I just had to check in to see what screwups he'd committed this time around.
• 

  You Know

  Are you calling me a clown, Cyknus, because I said that LaRouche got 25% instead of 21%, or whatever? In your rush to ridicule YK you have missed the point entirely. My point was that the establishment greatly fears LaRouche, and so for that reason they refused to acknowledge his candidacy. It is not an issue of whether LaRouche had a legitimate chance to win the Democratic nomination or not, the issue is that the media decided that the public did not need to know that he was even running. By your own observation, you admit that Alan Keyes garnered less votes than LaRouche, and yet Alan Keyes as well as other equally hopeless candidates, like Forbes and that other guy, whats-his-name? were given Federal matching campaign funds as well as the media spotlight and the opportunity to share in the so-called presidential debates. So, you have proved the point that I was making that the media rigged the election by giving coverage to unelectable candidates while deliberately ignoring a more qualified statesman. It also shows your preference for a tyrannical system of things that hands people their opinions in the daily news and ridicules anyone who dares to think for themselves. Because LaRouche's genius is unchallengable by the mental midgets in politics today, he is therefore disallowed from walking onto the same platform as them. / You Know

  http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2000/lar_bad_guy_2710.html
• 

  JAVA

  YK said,
  

  It also shows your preference for a tyrannical system of things that hands people their opinions

  
  

  1914, 1918, 1919,
  Millions Now Living Will Never Die (1920),
  1925, 1975, before end of 20th century,
  read The Watchtower for upcoming dates.

  Don’t miss Jehovah Will Murder Billions

  
  now playing at a Kingdom Hall near you!
  
  

  (Above scene from Watchtower Society of God having humans murdered.)
  What Does God Require of Us? Lesson 5 "What Is God's Purpose for the Earth?"

  
  
  

  Watchtower Society WARNING: Not joining our
  sect could cause sudden DEATH!
  Have a nice day.
• 

  Cygnus

  I got nothing against LaRouche. Heck, if I didn't support Jehovah's righteous Kingdom, I would vote for him.

  MY point was that your facts were wrong, as usual. You're great at obfuscating the facts in order to promote your agenda, but you'll never gain credibility until you post something that is accurate.
• 

  You Know

  Okay, fine. So what if it was 21% instead of 25%? Please post the link where you got that figure. / You Know
• 

  claudia

  Are you the same cygnus as on h2o?
• 

  Fredhall

  Don't let those horses ass get you mad You Know.
• 

  Cygnus

  : So what if it was 21% instead of 25%? Please post the link where you got that figure.

  So what is because it is another demonstration of your remarkable tendency to purposely manipulate or even accidentally screw up the facts so as to promote your ideas. You’ve done that countless times, and then brush your screw ups aside as if they are of no consequence. 21% or even 25% in a tiny state such as Arkansas in a race where Clinton wasn’t even running, had moved residence to NY, and was totally ignored by Gore, is a meaningless figure. In California, LaRouche managed to gain a mere .6% of the Democratic primary vote!

  Here is the web link you asked for:

  http://fecweb1.fec.gov/pages/2000presprim.htm#ar

  And yes, I am the same Cygnus from H2O.
• 

  Amazing

  Hey Cygnus: Great to see you back. And I appreciate your nailing YK. He really brunt hisself with this LaRoach (er, I mean LaRouche) thing, and clearly discredited himself. Thanks again. - Amazing
• 

  Farkel

  Amazing,

  : He really brunt hisself with this LaRoach (er, I mean LaRouche) thing, and clearly discredited himself.

  Au contraire, mi amie! In order to discredit, there must first be credit (credibility). YK has had none for years. From the first day he started posting more than just scriptures without comment, he has stubbornly rejected the notion that the best way to get out of a hole is to quit using the shovel.

  The "YK Beat Goes On....yahdee-dahdee-deeeeee. Yahdee-dahdee-dah."

  Farkel