More about our friend LaRouche

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON
Actually according to LaRouche, we did make it to the moon, since there are many other factors you can look at instead of just TV to tell you if you did. For example, the huge boom in the computer/medical industry that followed. It is no secret we can't go back to the moon right now, NASA needs 7 years to send astronauts to the moon again. LaRouche was right, we looted our own physical capabilities.

Hah, that sounds like a technique that lots of religious cults use when "witnessing". Basically, you start out with something truthful, and from there proceed to quickly add slight mistruths until you end up with an outright lie. However, it is done so quickly, to confuse the listener with the apparent "logic" and knock them off guard so they won't feel like questioning you.

Anyway, backing up a bit, is there any real reason to go back to the moon? After all, what more is there to be found? Maybe it's not that NASA can't do it, just that there's no reason for doing it.

 

[KAMAZON]

Hah, that sounds like a technique that lots of religious cults use when "witnessing". Basically, you start out with something truthful, and from there proceed to quickly add slight mistruths until you end up with an outright lie. However, it is done so quickly, to confuse the listener with the apparent "logic" and knock them off guard so they won't feel like questioning you.

Anyway, backing up a bit, is there any real reason to go back to the moon? After all, what more is there to be found? Maybe it's not that NASA can't do it, just that there's no reason for doing it.

You don't know a thing about physical science, do you? Stating there are more ways than 'just TV' to know if the US did go to the moon or not, doesn't mean 'its a religious cult'. What are you talking about? Furthermore, it's not that NASA *doesn't* want to go back, it's that we *can't*. Notice we underfund NASA so much that shuttles blow up, when you were never supposed to send 1 shuttle up alone to begin with. Those crew members could have been saved if NASA was not underfunded.

Why would we go back? I can name numerous, why don't you name me just 1 good reason why we shouldn't go back. To answer the first thing that you'll probably state, which will be 'it'll cost lots of money', is that it will produce lots of money. The origional space program brought in over $14 for every dollar we spent. It completely started the PC Industry boom, medical breakthroughs through monitoring devices, smaller and more efficient parts, etc. There are many reasons to go back, and not 1 good reason not to.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON

Hah, that sounds like a technique that lots of religious cults use when "witnessing". Basically, you start out with something truthful, and from there proceed to quickly add slight mistruths until you end up with an outright lie. However, it is done so quickly, to confuse the listener with the apparent "logic" and knock them off guard so they won't feel like questioning you.

Anyway, backing up a bit, is there any real reason to go back to the moon? After all, what more is there to be found? Maybe it's not that NASA can't do it, just that there's no reason for doing it.

You don't know a thing about physical science, do you? Stating there are more ways than 'just TV' to know if the US did go to the moon or not, doesn't mean 'its a religious cult'. What are you talking about? Furthermore, it's not that NASA *doesn't* want to go back, it's that we *can't*. Notice we underfund NASA so much that shuttles blow up, when you were never supposed to send 1 shuttle up alone to begin with. Those crew members could have been saved if NASA was not underfunded.

Why would we go back? I can name numerous, why don't you name me just 1 good reason why we shouldn't go back. To answer the first thing that you'll probably state, which will be 'it'll cost lots of money', is that it will produce lots of money. The origional space program brought in over $14 for every dollar we spent. It completely started the PC Industry boom, medical breakthroughs through monitoring devices, smaller and more efficient parts, etc. There are many reasons to go back, and not 1 good reason not to.

Where in the hell do you get your information? Never supposed to send 1 shuttle up at a time? Ooooo k. I will agree that NASA is under funded, but that has not been the cause of accidents like Challenger or Columbia. Those were caused by a combination of arrogance and institutional laziness.

We will go back to the moon soon enough. It won't be done by a government agency though, it will be done like private enterprise and that's fine with me. NASA was created for scientific missions, not business purposes. Let NASA concentrate on the space station and getting us to Mars.

 

[Corn]

Corn, truth will always insult those who don't wish to see.

Kinda like this insult/truth?

I can't tel you how frustrating it is to link facts only to have people ignore them and crap in your thread with their ignorance.

The only thing "caught" was your knee jerking itself........

 

[Bulk Beef]

I always assumed LaRouche wanted to build a railroad to the Moon. Silly me.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON

Like I told you before. I've read LaRouche. Waaaaay back when I was in high school I had a government teacher who was a big supporter of his. We read all kinds of his whacky theories, predictions, etc, etc, etc....and even at the age of 17 I knew he was a crackpot.

So what you are saying is that LaRouche was 'a crackpot' for saying the soviet union will meltdown in 5 years if htey don't change way back in 1984, and that the World financial system is now, in fact, NOT melting down, and we did in fact, NOT start immoral imperial wars of aggressions? Boy, you sure showed LaRouche!

Yeah, and if I can find them, there are recently declassified intel SITREPs from the CIA dated around '83-'84 describing the decaying condition of the Soviet Union.

LaRouche merely made the same educated guess that many analysts were making at the time. Nothing new.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: sward666
I always assumed LaRouche wanted to build a railroad to the Moon. Silly me.

It's a bridge not a railroad.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: sward666
I always assumed LaRouche wanted to build a railroad to the Moon. Silly me.

It's a bridge not a railroad.

Yeah, I've been reading about his cockamamie "bridge around the world" idea, but he also has some weird preoccupation with railroads. Keeps mentioning it in his radio spots around here.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: sward666
I always assumed LaRouche wanted to build a railroad to the Moon. Silly me.

It's a bridge not a railroad.

Yeah, I've been reading about his cockamamie "bridge around the world" idea, but he also has some weird preoccupation with railroads. Keeps mentioning it in his radio spots around here.

His parents never gave him a toy train when he was a child. Because of that he's now a grown man that has a strange fascination with choo choos.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Corn, truth will always insult those who don't wish to see.

Kinda like this insult/truth?

I can't tel you how frustrating it is to link facts only to have people ignore them and crap in your thread with their ignorance.

The only thing "caught" was your knee jerking itself........

Oh no, Corn, I wasn't insulted at all. I don't understand the quote marks around caught though. Who was talking about caught? And naturally, my knee jerking is better than your careful analysis. It's all done by feel. But carry on.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corn

Corn, truth will always insult those who don't wish to see.

Kinda like this insult/truth?

I can't tel you how frustrating it is to link facts only to have people ignore them and crap in your thread with their ignorance.

The only thing "caught" was your knee jerking itself........

Oh no, Corn, I wasn't insulted at all. I don't understand the quote marks around caught though. Who was talking about caught? And naturally, my knee jerking is better than your careful analysis. It's all done by feel. But carry on.

Just admit it Moonie....you crapped in this thread without first even bothering to glance at the linked articles. No big deal really, it's just that Corn called you on it and now you're all defensive.

 

[KAMAZON]

Yeah, and if I can find them, there are recently declassified intel SITREPs from the CIA dated around '83-'84 describing the decaying condition of the Soviet Union.

LaRouche merely made the same educated guess that many analysts were making at the time. Nothing new.

Show me 1 person who made an 'educated guess' as close as LaRouches. In 1984. he warned the soviets that their system would melt down and give them a solution, which if they didn't take he warned, their system would be finished withen 5 years? Do note, this is what got Reagon to give the address to Primakov on the "S.D.I".

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Bonus question: Who killed JFK?


cmon, your baiting him, you know he can't resist......

I hope it has something to do with the British Monarchy, I love a good international thriller.

Why do you think Diana needed to be eliminated? You thought that was an accident?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON

Yeah, and if I can find them, there are recently declassified intel SITREPs from the CIA dated around '83-'84 describing the decaying condition of the Soviet Union.

LaRouche merely made the same educated guess that many analysts were making at the time. Nothing new.

Show me 1 person who made an 'educated guess' as close as LaRouches. In 1984. he warned the soviets that their system would melt down and give them a solution, which if they didn't take he warned, their system would be finished withen 5 years? Do note, this is what got Reagon to give the address to Primakov on the "S.D.I".

So, you are saying that LaRouch was on the side of the Soviets.

Strike three, you're out of here.

 

[KAMAZON]

So, you are saying that LaRouch was on the side of the Soviets.

Strike three, you're out of here.

Heh, do you equate everything to baseball? Read his book, "The 1984 Independant Democrat Platform". He warned this comming meltdown fo the Soviet Empire, would lead us closer to a nucler confrontation. No sane American or Soviet woudl want that. It was Henry Kissinger who was pushing us into a Nuclear War with the Soviets where we stand on equal ground, not LaRouche.

Kissinger: Soviet Agent Of Influence
Lyndon LaRouche's 1984 broadcast on national television. LaRouche exposes the neo-Malthusian policies of Henry A. Kissinger.


Kissinger: Soviet Agent Of Influence -mp3 audio

Here is something fun for you LaRouche bashers. This is Lyn on national TV calling Henry Kissinger out as a soviet agent of inluence.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON

So, you are saying that LaRouch was on the side of the Soviets.

Strike three, you're out of here.

Heh, do you equate everything to baseball? Read his book, "The 1984 Independant Democrat Platform". He warned this comming meltdown fo the Soviet Empire, would lead us closer to a nucler confrontation. No sane American or Soviet woudl want that. It was Henry Kissinger who was pushing us into a Nuclear War with the Soviets where we stand on equal ground, not LaRouche.

Kissinger: Soviet Agent Of Influence
Lyndon LaRouche's 1984 broadcast on national television. LaRouche exposes the neo-Malthusian policies of Henry A. Kissinger.


Kissinger: Soviet Agent Of Influence -mp3 audio

Here is something fun for you LaRouche bashers. This is Lyn on national TV calling Henry Kissinger out as a soviet agent of inluence.

More ranting from the peanut gallery.....as always it's only backed up by LaRouche links.....I'm still waiting on you to produce the court case numbers you have been promising to in another thread.

 

[KAMAZON]

More ranting from the peanute gallery.....as always it's only backed up by LaRouche links.....I'm still waiting on you to produce the court case numbers you have been promising to in another thread.

I said if you would like them, I would be happy to get the court case #s for you, and you never replied. Regardless, here is LaRouche on National TV in 1984, acusing Kissinger of Soviet Agent of Influence. This is at the height of the slander campaign, and it's a origional source. Show me where he is wrong:


LaRouche: Kissinger Soviet Agent of Influence

 

[Alistar7]

KaZa people have been showing you things for weeks on here, you just ignore them.


It's simple, you believe everything LL says is absolute fact, enough said.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON

More ranting from the peanute gallery.....as always it's only backed up by LaRouche links.....I'm still waiting on you to produce the court case numbers you have been promising to in another thread.

I said if you would like them, I would be happy to get the court case #s for you, and you never replied. Regardless, here is LaRouche on National TV in 1984, acusing Kissinger of Soviet Agent of Influence. This is at the height of the slander campaign, and it's a origional source. Show me where he is wrong:


LaRouche: Kissinger Soviet Agent of Influence

Liar, liar...pants on fire...

Here's a cut and paste from the other thread...notice the time I replied to you.

06/18/2003 3:44 PM (NEW!)

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: KAMAZON
If you can't find the case #s, then I will be happy to get the case #s for all of the cases if you would like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You keep saying that. Well let me correct myself, you kept saying they were included in Ramsey "Pigs in Space" Clark's letter to Attorney General Reno. Well I read the letter 3 times and the case numbers are not in there. I point that out to you and the story is now "I will get you the case #'s if you like" Ok Mr. Thicker than a donkey's dangler....find them.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON

More ranting from the peanute gallery.....as always it's only backed up by LaRouche links.....I'm still waiting on you to produce the court case numbers you have been promising to in another thread.

I said if you would like them, I would be happy to get the court case #s for you, and you never replied. Regardless, here is LaRouche on National TV in 1984, acusing Kissinger of Soviet Agent of Influence. This is at the height of the slander campaign, and it's a origional source. Show me where he is wrong:


LaRouche: Kissinger Soviet Agent of Influence

So LaRouche says Kissinger was a Soviet Agent.....that doesn't make it true. Except of course in your odd little mind. Not that your mind is twisted, it's just badly sprained.

 

[KAMAZON]

Instead of copying/pasting some slander article, why not actually listen to what LaRouche was saying when these articles were written? You post mass media outlets as if they are always right, without diong any research. If enough people told you snow is black, you would believe them. I have posted an origional source of LaRouche in 1984 in a direct attack against Henry Kissinger, when he was forecasting the fall of the Soviet Empire withen 5 years. , if he is so 'strak raving mad', you should be able to prove it by just listening to 3 minutes of this national broadcast.

 

[Alistar7]

I'm looking for the case numbers, I just need more time, it's not like we don't know they existed, they are just unaccounted for at this moment, be patient.....

 

[Alistar7]

and.....





You post mass LL ideas as if they are always right....

 

[Alistar7]

I can readily admit I have been wrong more times than I can remember in life, Kaza tell me one thing LL is wrong about, just one case in which he is completely wrong.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON
Instead of copying/pasting some slander article, why not actually listen to what LaRouche was saying when these articles were written? You post mass media outlets as if they are always right, without diong any research. If enough people told you snow is black, you would believe them. I have posted an origional source of LaRouche in 1984 in a direct attack against Henry Kissinger, when he was forecasting the fall of the Soviet Empire withen 5 years. , if he is so 'strak raving mad', you should be able to prove it by just listening to 3 minutes of this national broadcast.

Yes I post from mass media outlets, as well as academic outlets. Both of which you ignore because they, like everyone with 1/2 a brain, go against the rantings of LaRouche and his brainwashed followers. Like I've said to you countless times...find me a link from a respected news source, research, etc... that supports anything LaRouche says. Lots of people were forecasting the fall of the Soviet Union in the 80's. It was obvious that their economy was dead and there was no hope of bringing it back to life. I had a history teacher in junior high say the same thing back in 1982. He beat your boy by a full two years and he was just a high school history teacher/football coach. I don't have to listen to LaRouche's propaganda broadcast to know he's nuttier than my sh1t after eating a Stuckey's peanut roll.

Still waiting on those court case numbers just like I have been since I made my post asking for them at 3:44 this afternoon.