editted because YK is just not worth it.
Don't feed the trolls
Edited by - Kismet on 6 August 2002 13:11:27
APOSTATE DUBS----STONE COLD KILLERS?
by You Know 176 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Kismet
-
Wolfgirl
YK, if you'd read the bloody thread, you'd know what I said. I even copied it for you, in case you were just too lazy to go back. I'm not doing your work for you. Read my first response to you, found on page 2.
-
You Know
Outlaw, I am not inclined to educate you on how the world works. Besides. I don't have to prove who the terrorists are working for. As far as my little wager is concerned it doesn't matter. The result of 9-11 was a war. That's what I bet would happen. I had no idea that the Pentagon and WTC would be dive bomed by kamakazi hijackers, I just had my finger up to the wind and made an educated guess that something had to give. You are just going to have to accept the fact that YK was right. Call me lucky if you want, if that helps you deal with the situation. Or maybe get some professional counseling to help you deal with your YK issues. Hope that helps / You Know
-
You Know
WOLFGIRL
I read your post. I just don't know what you want to debate. You said you were raped by your father, right? What's to debate? Was there a question that you wanted to ask me? If you want my opinion I think what happened to you is terrible. I am sorry. What do you want me to say? If you are interested as to how I think Jehovah is going to handle stuff like that I suggest that you read some of my archived posts as I have discussed things like that in some depth. / You Know
-
OUTLAW
Liar! You said a war due to financial collapse,not dumb ass terrorists flying into a building..Again..prove me wrong...OUTLAW
-
dubla
yk-
Ah, the old bait and switch. I thought we were talking about My Little Wager?
it wasnt bait and switch, as i addressed your "little wager" in the next breath.....i just have a hard time passing up on opportunities to bring attention to your track record.
As for Doug Machintosh's Memorial Day Meltdown prediciton that was his, not mine.
well, true...ill give you that. but the fact is, we all know you post those links as if larouchepub.com is the gospel.....and you regularly regurgitate their viewpoints here. i guess when you post a link to a nutcase making memorial day predictions, you appear to be agreeing with him.
What is laughable is that you fools have tried to interpret my little wager to mean that Wall Street was going to war with itself.
another attempt at discrediting me through outright lies. i have never made this statement or implication about "wall street...going to war with itself" as you have so many times accused me of. thats just nonsense you toss around that i dont think any of us actually said.....its your little invention to make everyone else sound preposterous. the fact of the matter is, no one knew exactly what you meant by the "financial system" being in "a state of war".....and the fact is also that you were asked many times to better define your wager, and given plenty of ample opportunity to say "what i mean is, the u.s. will go to war, OR the financial system will crash", if indeed thats what you meant. you always refused these requests, knowing that further narrowing your prediction would only put you at a greater risk of error.....and would only expound on your meaning after 9-11(of course the easiest time to do so). like i said though, either way it wont matter a year from now when your financial meltdown scenarios will only look that much more ridiculous. what you originally meant by the financial system being in a state of war, we may never know.....nor will we ever care, lol.
I have had many a good laugh over your antics.
i think you just said it for all of us....a big ditto.
Americans are such fools. You are too.
i am an american, so no need for the redundant insult.
But, yet for being so in the dark the day after 9-11 the government said the Bin Laden was the man, no doubt about it. No investigation was needed. That's simply incredible.
its not incredible at all....the guy has been behind numerous attacks (perhaps youve been sleeping under a rock), and his whole organization is constantly being watched.......identifying and tracing the hijackers back to bin laden isnt exactly a lengthy process. what i love is how larouche still contends that bin laden is an invention that had nothing to do with the attacks, and thats even after bin laden himself took credit for the attacks, on video. oh yes, im sure the anglo-american establishment staged the video, with actors reading lines....no better yet, bin laden himself acting out the part, and then going back to work in his f.b.i. office, no one the wiser.
That's simply incredible. Now, though, Rumsfeld is saying that Bin Laden isn't important.
hes not the only piece...and everyone realizes that his regime will live on long after hes dead anyhow. so in the grand scheme of things, as far as slowing terrorism, bin laden as an individual really isnt that important. this is simple stuff that is apparently complicated for you.....thus the need for the intricate conspiracy scenarios.
So, yeah, your world is run from the top down by professional liars.
the same could be said of you......right from the first watchtower ever printed.
At some point you are going to have to face that harsh reality in a way that you cannot imagine at the moment.
i can imagine being burned alive from the fire balls falling out of the sky....which part is it that you think i cannot imagine?
Back then there was that little thing called the Asian Crisis which was the beginning of the collapse that has been ongoing. LaRouche said back then that the only reason the system was staying together...
talk about a bait and switch......it really doesnt make a lick of difference what reason larouche gave after 1997 came and went, proving his ridiculous prediction to be rubbish. the fact is, he put his name on the line, and flat out said that 1997 would not come and go without financial meltdown....and he was dead wrong. he can go back now and give whatever reasons he wants, much the way you do when your key dates come and go. of course, he contends that he has never been wrong about any financial prediction, which may be the most laughable part of it all.
but now of course it is public knowledge that the government...........have lied and cooked their books
why do you insist on trying to decieve the average reader out there every chance you get? is it just because you know most people will merely skim over your comments, without actually researching them? it is not "public knowledge" by any means that the government has "cooked their books". if you are referring to the benchmark revision again, let me reiterate that revisions in gdp and economic data have been going on long before you and larouche ever started screaming about book cooking......and many of these revisions have been downward revisions. (why was there no great outcry of "cover up" when the gdp was revised downward in 1992?) it has nothing to do with uncovering government book cooking as you imagine.
Actually Larouche said that the whole Y2K thing was a fraud intended to pump up tech spending to fuel the Nasdaq bubble, which of course blew out a couple of months into Y2K. / You Know
he said this before y2k? what was the date on this article, where he made this statement about y2k fraud? im just wondering why you didnt jump on his bandwagon, if indeed he had it figured out way before it ever happened.
aa
-
You Know
Outlaw, I think I understand what the problem is here.
It seems that you have some sort of basic remedial literacy problem.
I didn't say there would be a war as a result of a financial collapse.
Reread what I wrote, carefully.
I said that there would either be a collapse or a war.
Get it? EITHER/ OR
You seem to really be taking this thing pretty hard. LOL / You Know
I am breaking for lunch now boys
-
simwitness
YK said (on this very page, in this very thread):
I merely said that if the financial system would either crash or it would be in a state of war.
So, which of the two happened on 9-11?
Did the Financial System crash? (no) Could it, is it now, or will it ever is not the question at hand.
Is the Financial system in a state of war? ("it" in that sentance clearly points to the "financial system") No. Is america "at war" with Terrorism (or the Al Queda, the Taliban) Yes. Was it due to a financial collapse? No. Is it in response to the aforementioned groups actions against american interests? Yes. Did it help the economy? Some say yes, others no.
So, niether part of his either/or sentance that he just "clarified" happened.
I don't care about the bet, but You Know clearly is not very good at covering up his own dishonesty.
Perhaps You Know would like to clarify furhter, but it is abundantly clear that he will never admit that he was simply "wrong" about something.
-
OUTLAW
More bullshit! 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 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.There was no military war or financial war due to economic collapse.You lose on all accounts..Again.. prove me wrong...OUTLAW
Edited by - OUTLAW on 6 August 2002 14:1:7
-
ashitaka
This is more intense than debating WT doctrine....