Lyndon Larouche

Billy you've quoted EIR as a source of information before, you clearly thought it was a worthy publication and it seemed implicit that you subscribed. So what sites do you subscribe to? Why did you defend Lyndon Larouche (even pointing us to his f*cking ridiculous website)? Why did you take such umbrage and lash out blindly at catholicism after JPaul pointed out that Larouche was a complete moron? Why didn't you deny the subscription earlier? I don't know if theres a forum rule about cults trying to recruit members, but there should be.

:)

ilw, what are you doing up this early?

To say everthing written at EIR is rubbish is totally untrue. One of the reports on his site, I was party to, and they got it spot on, you don't do that unless you have insider knowledge. They named my boss, his company, and several other facts. I've also seen a lot of the info there verified elsewhere. And it is not all written by LaRouche.

I subscribe to a couple of sites that you can't belong to, as I said, I can't post links.

I pointed to LaRouche's website after JP started cutting and pasting various opinions of the man, I was just showing that for every negative site, there was a positive one. It does not mean I endorse the man or his politics.

As for lashing out blindly at the catholic church, I cut and pasted selective references to the catholic church's close association with facism, exactly as JP was doing. Did you pull him up for it?

Quote:

---

I don't know if theres a forum rule about cults trying to recruit members, but there should be.

---

Was this aimed at me? You should mind what you say!


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@29 September 2003 - 09:37
Welcome back j2, we missed you. Well, maybe missed wasn't the right word, but we noticed you were gone.

As for the ***Billy and EBP*** thingy, no pique from me j2, I stated before, I thought you were being a smartarse. Nothing wrong with that.

@ JPaul. You really are amusing, your posts are showing a side of you that people should take note of.

I do not subscribe to EIR, I never said I did, you misread, and misquoted me.

You then "assume" my political views are the same as LaRouche, whilst holding extreme catholic \ fascist views of your own.

Then you come up with this ..

Quote:

---

The fact that someone would suggest his publication as a source of information on which to formulate opinions beggers belief

---

.. ignoring the fact that I advised the person to Google for more info. The EIR report was obviously one side of an argument, something you wouldn't know about, none of your arguments contain two sides, as your dummy spit over your religion showed.

This is becoming personal for you, you didn't like me rubbishing your religious views, so you decided to "get your own back". Unfortunately, for you, it's backfiring on you.



:)

---

This is just nonsense and once again an attempt to divert. I am supposed to start arguing about whether my views are fascist or not, no need. If anyone wishes to find me promulgating this then they are free to do so. Please look anywhere I have posted about my Faith. Indeed Billy_Deans asked us to do it and I replied.

You are now lying as can be seen by comparing your posts. You clearly pointed people to this EIR drivel as a source of information. You have also defended it and it's owner. You have also stated that you hold extreme views, as previously stated others can read the posts and decide.

I leave it up to people to compare what you have said and what I have said and to form their own opinion. I would also urge others to keep a large pinch of salt with them when reading your "anecdotes". I realise that your "character" may be an interesting and glamourous one, with a hint of mystery. However that does not mean that you really are that person.

Oh and there is no side to me being shown here that hasn't been seen before. Once again others will be able to confirm this. There is no need for you to invite them to take note.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@29 September 2003 - 10:07


I pointed to LaRouche's website after JP started cutting and pasting various opinions of the man, I was just showing that for every negative site, there was a positive one. It does not mean I endorse the man or his politics.

---

That's just a lie and a provable one.

As I posted earlier I had never even heard of EIR, never mind Larouche, until you recommended it. I then did a few checks myself. I posted some material on him, as a direct result of your post.

See my earlier post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@29 September 2003 - 10:07
To say everthing written at EIR is rubbish is totally untrue.
I subscribe to a couple of sites that you can't belong to, as I said, I can't post links.

---

I would say that every article is a mixture of fact, fiction and propoganda, enough facts that you believe they know what they are talking about and then bias inducing rubbish and twisted information for the rest of it.
Please stop alluding to secret information, give us names even if you can't link, I've had it with the I know something that you don't know secret crap, if its a UK government site then say so and i'll get a mate to look it up on the government intranet, if its not just tell us an address or a name

Edit: JP I think he meant Larouche's main election page as opposed to his publication page

I think you've finally blown it JP, you're a liar and a bullshitter, you deliberately misquote and mislead. You've got a bee in your bonnet over your inability to justify your extreme catholic views. Well fire away, you're doing a better job of ridiculing yourself than I can ever do.

@ ilw. Why don't YOU drop it, you have asked me on several occasions about myself. I'm telling you nothing. Not who I am, where I've been or what I've done. And I'm certainly not pointing you to web sites. If you want to research, do so, your generalisations are getting tedious.


:)

Billy you're a liar a bigot and an idiot. Please stfu

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@29 September 2003 - 11:32
I think you've finally blown it JP, you're a liar and a bullshitter, you deliberately misquote and mislead. You've got a bee in your bonnet over your inability to justify your extreme catholic views. Well fire away, you're doing a better job of ridiculing yourself than I can ever do.

@ ilw. Why don't YOU drop it, you have asked me on several occasions about myself. I'm telling you nothing. Not who I am, where I've been or what I've done. And I'm certainly not pointing you to web sites. If you want to research, do so, your generalisations are getting tedious.


:)

---

More pathetic by the post. Your deflection becoming more obvious.

Others can read and decide for themselves. You go on about these "extreme" catholic views, which you claim I have posted, what are they. In response to a request which you made I posted what I believe. None of it extreme.

The facts speak for themselves. I truly invite, indeed urge others to read what has been said and make their own judgment.

As for this "character" you have adopted, it's just laughable. Though it is traditional for people to create (or steal) a history in order to make themselves more plausible.

EDIT

Nice new avatar btw Billy did

http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/av.jpg

become troublesome.

Edit: nevermind, don't want to go down this path

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@29 September 2003 - 03:37
You then "assume" my political views are the same as LaRouche, whilst holding extreme catholic \ fascist views of your own.

---

On a serious note, Billy-

This tactic you accuse JPaul of has been used by yourself and EBP on many occasions in an attempt to batter others.

It now seems you find it as tiresome as the rest of us.

As most of us who disagree with you have suffered the ignominy of being accused of having views/prejudices we do not hold (by yourself and EBP) we know whereof we speak, and if polled, would, I'm sure, agree.

EBP took affront when I accused him of wishing the Israeli nation be "wiped out"; I quoted his leading phrase-he then chose to argue semantics.

It can, regretfully, be an effective tactic-though it can never justified in an honest debate or disagreement.

Foregoing such tactics has the effect, though, of removing a "seasoning" from the process that some can't do without.