YK,I answered your post on the previous page.My post is also on the previous page..prove me wrong...OUTLAW
APOSTATE DUBS----STONE COLD KILLERS?
by You Know 176 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
You Know
OUTLAW says
Your own words:'I will wager $100.00 bucks that before the end of October that the "PRESENT FINANCIAL SYSTEM..." In your own words you set the perimiters of the bet.There was no talk of a military war in your wager,just what would happen to the "present financial system".
You really are having a hard time wrapping your mind around this one aren't you? Let me ask you, are there any other kinds of wars other than military wars? How stupid do you want to get with this thing?
You used the war on terrorisim to get out of losing your bet and you couldn`t even get that right because it had nothing to do with financial collapse.
You are truely pitiful. I think you are becoming obsessed with this thing. I didn't lose my bet. The apostates did. I bet that there would either be a financial crash or a war. As it turned out there was a war. I made no reservations about what kind of war it would be or how it would come about. I did though have some idea of how a war situation might postpone the financial collapse for a little while, which is what happened. That's it. I know it is tough for a lot of you to come to terms with the fact that I was right. But you are just going to have to deal with it. / You Know
Edited by - You Know on 6 August 2002 15:54:40
-
Crazy151drinker
To my favorite smurf loving Apostate YOU KNOW
The financial oligarchs do
Here you are saying the 'secret financial society' is behind the terrorist attacks. But yet earlier you say they are going to start a war because they are losing their ass in the markets because of the same terrorist attacks. So are you trying to say that the 'financial oligarchs' attacked themselves? What would be the point of that? To start a war that in your idiotic opinion would end the world? Then they would lose all their money! So obviously they wouldnt do that now would they! So obviously they are not behind the terrorist attacks. So obviously your a dumbass. So obviously you are homophobic. So most obvioulsy of all you are wrong, allways will be, and you owe OUTLAW $100. Deal with it.
Edited by - crazy151drinker on 6 August 2002 16:4:13
Edited by - crazy151drinker on 6 August 2002 16:18:13
-
OUTLAW
I didn`t set the perimiters of the bet,you did.As I showed you with your own words there was no talk of a military war only what would happen with the "present financial system".Those were the perimiters you set,not me.Are there other kinds of war besides military?Try corporate take overs nitwit.Either way there was no wars due to economic collapse..Prove me wrong..you can`t. Your word is worth nothing.Your honour is worth $100.00,and you sold it...OUTLAW
Edited by - OUTLAW on 6 August 2002 16:17:42
-
You Know
OUTLAW
I didn`t set the perimiters of the bet,you did.
Yes. That's correct. I said that the present financial system would either crash outright or be in a state of war. As it turned out it was saved by the circumstances of war. I have explained this numerous times. What part don't you understand? / You Know
-
Crazy151drinker
I said the present financial system would either crash outright or be in a state of war
The current financial system has not crashed nor is it in a state of war. Your claim that the war on TERRORISM fills this criteria is false! The 'war' on terrorism in no way constitutes the present financial sytem being in a state of war. YOU ARE WRONG. DEAL WITH IT. PAY OUTLAW his $100. Why cant you admit you are wrong??? Do ever admit you are wrong?? Or do you concede that its just new light and its always been new light?? Go play with your smurfs dumbass.
Edited by - crazy151drinker on 6 August 2002 16:53:46
-
dubla
yk-
Back in October and November several apostates were apparently stunned by the turn of events and tried to spin it that I had said that Wall Street was going to war with itself.
i went back and looked through the thread....the only person that i could find that said anything about "wall street..going to war with itself", was in fact you. the only thing the rest of us said was that you predicted the financial system would be in crash down mode, or a state of war.....and i quoted your absurd backtracking and twisting of the issue for all to see on my last post.
Evidently you do care though. You have spent untold hours dealing with my little wager.
as ive stated many times, my exposing of you serves a purpose, and it has very little to do with whether or not i care personally about your wager, or any of your other viewpoints. spending "untold hours" refuting your nonsense does not mean that i take a personal interest in it.
You are lying. LaRouche didnt say Bin Laden didnt have anything to do with 9-11.
well, if he hasnt said that precisely, he has surely implied it....and like i said, after the video where bin laden specifically takes credit for the planning. heres larouches opinion of bin ladens involvement:
this myth of Osama bin Laden, which is a complete fraud: No fact has ever been presented, publicly, in any forum in the world, to give any backing whatsoever, for the allegation that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden caused the events of Sept. 11th, in the United States! Not a single bit of evidence, was ever presented, publicly!
i guess i assumed that by calling bin laden a myth, he was implying bin laden didnt have anything to do with 9-11, silly me. also, i love how he shouts at the top of his lungs "not a single bit of evidence, was ever presented, publicly!"....lol, watch the video weve all seen larouche, and calm down.
It wasnt ridiculous.
he was dead wrong....call it what you want, i call it ridiculous.
No its not. Just like it wasnt public knowledge ...
heres a prime example of your deceit tactics....and again, i am happy to serve the purpose of pointing these lies out for the lurkers. here you said that it is not public knowledge that the government cooks its books......but on your previous post, you said:
but now of course it is public knowledge that the government and large corporations have lied and cooked their books
so in one breath you say it is public knowledge, this government book cooking, and the next breath you admit it is not........sometimes i wonder if you simply underestimate every reader out there, and think that no one will catch you in these constant lies and contradictions.
So you admit that the fakery has been going on a long time?
the revisions, yes...and theyve always been public, hardly fakery. again, why no mention of these revisions until now? why werent you screaming about book cooking in 1992 when the gdp was revised downward? because it wasnt book cooking then, and the only reason youre calling it that now is the term "book cooking" is en vogue, and you can toss it around and expect everyone to just accept that indeed it must be true of the government as well......you are transparent.
as far as the y2k thing goes....if larouche was indeed saying all along that it was nothing to worry about, then i commend you for actually going against the larouchepub grain on that issue, even if it did just make you look worse in the grand scheme of predictions.
aa
-
dubla
one more point.....
I didn't lose my bet. The apostates did.
are you now contending that someone actually lost this bet to you? previously you had stated:
As regards my little wager, I won't hold the board to paying off.......for the simple reason that the board did not accept the terms of my bet. Every wager, in order for it to be legitimate, must have a counter-party in order to validate it. As it stands.......there was no consensus on the part of the forum.
so first you say there was never a bet to begin with, because no one accepted your "terms"....and now you are stating there was indeed a valid bet, which you won......which is it? and if there wasnt in fact a legitimate wager, as you originally stated....then who do you imagine you won your bet with, yourself?
aa
-
OUTLAW
Your post makes no sense.In the third sentence you say:"I said the present financial system would either crash outright or be in a state of war." Once again you outright say the present financial system would be in a state of war. Your words not mine. In your fourth sentence you say:"As it turned out it was saved by the circumstances of war."The only circumstances of war during that time were military.So which war are you talking about?Regardless of which war you decide to chose this time ,there was no war,financial or military,due to economic collapse.You lose on both accounts...OUTLAW
Edited by - OUTLAW on 6 August 2002 17:24:51
-
dubla
okay, just one more point, then im outta here for the day:
Yes. That's correct. I said that the present financial system would either crash outright or be in a state of war.
since you keep regurgitating this portion of your wager, let me remind you that the first half of your wager (the half you conveniently forget to mention now) was that the financial system would be in a full blown crisis.....there was no "or" here, that was the first half of your wager, period. the last time i brought this to your attention, you attempted to make me look bad by comparing me with those who break down scriptures and pick out words to split hairs about......bottom line is though, its there in black and white.
aa
