You Know: You just really went out on a limb. Let's take this from the top one more time.
You accused me of slandering gossip by saying, "Sure you did. You are passing on gossip and distortions and you are unwilling to get the facts. You show a perverse disregard for the truth. Get yerself educated before you pass on opinions that have been handed to you." You then pass along this LaRouche website to get facts straight. This is like asking the Watch Tower to get facts straight.
I did not plass along slander. It is a FACT that these people, La ROuche included, were involved in Credit Card fraud, and that is why they went to prison ... it is called stealing, lying, and cheating."
That is why it is NOT slander, but you don 't seem to understand the difference.
You said, "Most people read newspapers and periodicals that they assume are telling them the truth." Whoa!!! But JWs can only assume that the Watch Tower has the Truth, and as such, while admittedly many JWs do at least read the paper or watch TV, they are not supposed to have their belief systems affected without guidance from the GB. But you tout LaROuche as a great Truth teller and use his false predictions as a guide.
LaRouche has been predicting financial gloom and doom for a long time, and so far, he has NOT been correct inspite of some chart comparisons that HE and his Publoishing Arm put together.
You continued, "I am the sort that doesn't settle for the mainstream version of reality."
So you buy into Crackpot conspiracy theorists ... I can see where you are headed with that.
You continued, "So I have made it a point to seek out alternative sources of information on current events. The EIR is by far the most reliable source of news that I have found."
Yep! real reliable, just like your predictions ...
Regarding my sarcasm (which you missed) about LaROuche, you said, "You are getting ridiculous, as if you weren't already silly beyond grasp. LaRouche is a humanist. He believes that the destiney of humanity lies withing the realm of humans to control."
Most of these people do. They also tie their shoe laces, put their pants on one leg at a time, etc. Just because a con artist espouses some good advice does not make him truthful.
You said, "I frequently witness to LaRouche activists and they adamantly disagree with me that God is going to personally intervene in human affairs. But, I value their assessment of the world's present condition, especially as regards the Anglo oligarchy."
So, it seems that maybe theer efforts to get into your mind is working better than your efforst to get into their mind. It is nice that you respct them, I guess. But, you forget that most of these fringe groups and conspiracy cults have much in common, and one of those is that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But, such things have been said for thousands of years.
The Anglo oligarchy, as you like to dub it, is no longer what it was many decades ago. Diversity, power sharing, multi-culturalism have all made major shifts in what was once a 'white man's' world. This is good. But, the conspiracy theorists like to tout this and claim all sorts of things because they are often racists deep down. But, as for LaRouche believers, I acare not whether they are racists, but their message is much like the people who fear the Illuminati. Some believe that people like LaRouche are Illuminati plants to distract people and discredit the conspiracies.
You continued, "As far as getting permission from the Watchtower, I didn't know that was neccesary. What you are obviously oblivious to, among other things, is that ALL news sources are political in nature."
If you are any kind of legitimate JW, then you know good and well that the Society does not like dubs to read much outside their literature. Over the years they have touted making sure one reads the WT, etc., before reading other material ... and then all the glum cautions about reading material and the need to be so careful ... blah, blah, blah ... as though average adults need such childish admonishion. The WTS does not like JWs to get into anything political, and nyour admission that all journals are political in nature means that you are walking a dangerous line with your leaders.
You continued, "The very fact, as I previously pointed out, that the media has given La Rouche the silent treatment indicates that they have a political bias towards his political movement. If they really thought that he was a crackpot they would without fear stick a microphone in front of him, as they do any number of morons with opinions."
This is not at all true. The media reports newsworthy material. They do not fear some crackpot like LaRouche. He is not news worthy. What determines newsworthy? Money. What makes the money? Customers who buy advertising time? Why to advertisers buy time? because they watch ratings, and want exposure. Who make up the ratings? People. The average consumer causes ratings scores, and the average consumer is who does not give a rats ass about La Rouche. And the reason that the average consumer does not care for La Rouche is the same reason that the average consumer does not want to sell Amway products, recruit new people for business opportunities, or become JWs. Why? Lack of respect for truth? NO, they are tired of being victimized by CON ARTISTS!
You continued, "But it should be obvious that their conspiracy of silence is because they fear him. Just as all evil men fear the truth."
If La Rouche were telling the truth and was accurate about anything, then by all means there are enough good and caring people in the media to make sure that his material would be accessible. As it is, they don't give him the time of day because he is not credible. The only people who say La Rouche is credible are his own people and his own publications, al-la-watchtower style.
You said in response to my request for proof: "The EIR has high level diplomatic connections which is evident to those who regularly read the journal. As for American presidents Ronald Reagan personally met with LaRouche and the so-called Stars Wars program that Reagan was touting was Larouche's brainchild. That's another reason why the London oligarchy went berserk and ordered LaRouche to be taken down."
Interesting statement. Prove it! No sources, no references, oh except for La Rouche web site and EIR. But, prove these claims with verifiable referneces.
With respect to my request for references, you said, "They all have lied. It is a fact that, for example, LaRouche got substantial percentages of primary votes in the last two presidential elections, enough to qualify for matching funds. Yet the media never even reported that Clinton or Gore had such a formidable challenger within the Democratic party. That is deliberately misleading the public and evidence that the media are controlled by the Anglo oligarchy and cannot be trusted."
If he qualified for matching funds, the he should have received such funds and he would have more money to show for it. And the media would most certainly report any formidable challenger. they love the sensation too much to ignore it.
You said in response to my request for proof, "LaRouche got 25% of the democratic primary vote in Clinton's home state of Arkansas for example. If you want to know the facts do the research yourself on the links I provided and stop this moronic blustering."
Now Bobby, originally you said that La Rouche got more than the Republican candidates combined. Now you have adjusted that to 25% of the State of Arkansas! Big difference Bobby. Arkansas is a little pip-squeak state with few votes, so it would not command much attention. Hell, George Bush took Arkansas and Tennessee from Gore, but the media glossed over it. Why? Not because there was any conspiracy, but Florida was the big news. Oregon and New Mexico also had major recounts, but the media barely mentioned them either. News is what makes money, and sensation is what makes news. There is nothing exciting about a con artist like La Rouche.
You continued, "I note that you have a moral defect that causes you to be adverse to the truth of all sorts. That apparently is your preference."
Say what you will booby. I am not adverse to the truth. I have asked for proof and you simply provide more written goop and sluch and no proof. Give the proof.
You continued regarding my correction of your quote. You said, "Wrong again fool. At least though you are consistent, I'll give you that much. You should really stop embarassing yourself with this nonsense though. Lincoln said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time. And all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."[/i]
Cool. My concern was your partial quote which tended to distort the context of what Lincoln really said. And in doing that, I was attempting to quote the entire statement and show the essence of what he meant. But, I did poorly in that. See how easy it is to admit error, Booby. It is healthy and refreshing. And this also serves as an example of what I am trying to get through to you, by admitting error, one does not disintegrate. - Amazing
