Exposed: Luciferians/Freemasons: Barack Obama & Ron Paul

reply to post by Cadbury


Then you did not disagree, or it was on something not concerning masonry.

Fire:

Your doing exactly what I said. Instead of engaging in a conversation, your just deflecting. If you want to have a conversation then lets start talking and stop blockading every attempt with rhetoric. Start a new thread, PM me, whatever.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Then you did not disagree, or it was on something not concerning masonry.

What do you mean "then you did not disagree?" I just told you that I did, and I did. Once about Masonry and on another occasion about the historical Bavarian Illuminati -- which, I might add, is a topic I think he'd be more concerned with -- considering he's authored a title on the subject.

He still didn't insult me.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


What the Masons have been badgering me about, since I've come here, has two separate meanings:

"To dispute or argue"
"To fight or quarrel"

What part of those definitions has anything to do with "conversation"?

Don't answer. It is rhetorical. That's my last word on it.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


See? As always..refusing to address the subject. Anytime the bulk of evidence shows that your theory is incorrect, deflect.

Around and around we go....

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
refusing to address the subject

The SUBJECT was supposed to be dropped! There have been 3 innuendos directed at me, by two separate Masons. Still soliciting.

What part of Mirthful Me's post did you NOT understand?

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

What the Masons have been badgering me about, since I've come here, has two separate meanings:

"To dispute or argue"
"To fight or quarrel"

What part of those definitions has anything to do with "conversation"?

Well, St. John-boy, I'd posit that "To dispute or argue" is emblematic of conversation-in-earnest. The latter has more in common with how you seem to have chosen to place yourself in respect to contradiction. There are plenty here more patient and better-informed than I. Yet you seem to have out of hand rebuffed any attempt to engage in something meaningful which naturally calls into question your underlying rationale.

Conversation's still possible but it takes two willing parties.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Don't answer. It is rhetorical. That's my last word on it.

If you say so although if so, it'd be a shame. I'm kind of at a loss at your reticence at what must be a golden opportunity to take down an adversary.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Well, St. John-boy

"St. John-boy"? "St. John-boy"?

What precisely is the intent of that quip?

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Wow, yet even MORE deflecting! I am not talking about you debating, I am talking about you being able to just post about masonry without your rhetoric and attempts to avoid having to address your own claims. You know this of course, but by pretending not to you can continue to just deflect, hide, and refuse to address your own postings.

Basically what you've done so far is "masons should have to reveal their identity, because there up to something." When evidence is shown that your incorrect, you do post after post of endless rhetoric avoiding the subject and refusing to address the evidence. I think it has to do with this need you have to get the "last word" on the subject without actually saying anything. Either respond to the evidence against you, or stop with the rhetoric. Because every time you respond with rhetoric, I'm just going to point it out.

Originally posted by Cadbury
What do you mean "then you did not disagree?" I just told you that I did, and I did. Once about Masonry and on another occasion about the historical Bavarian Illuminati -- which, I might add, is a topic I think he'd be more concerned with -- considering he's authored a title on the subject.

He still didn't insult me.

I vouch for that statement.

Yours is the truth, while the statement that caused you to respond in this thread in the first place, is a blatant lie - an exaggeration, intended to cause strife.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Deflection, rhetoric, and obsfucation.

Care to respond to your own claims, or are you going to continue with this? In fact I think it *is* now obvious your just interested in being able to opine on masonry without presenting any evidence, and you just want to have the last word. Its amusing...I'll let you have it. Enjoy.


[edit on 29-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Well, St. John-boy

"St. John-boy"? "St. John-boy"?

What precisely is the intent of that quip?

Intent? Nothing in particular

Relevance? Two-fold:

1) North American television cultural reference
&
2) A pot-shot on your likely locale given your claimed location.

Mind you, you could just as easily be in Edmunston, Moncton, Fredericton or Miramichi. Just playing the odds. But reason 1 doesn't mean much south of the 49th

Either way, t'isn't anything worth getting defensive about

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


"Wow, yet even MORE deflecting!"

False. There's is no deviation from anything at all, on my part. Sometimes I ignore - yes. Because, frankly the post was not worthy of my response.

"I am not talking about you debating"

BS. I may be a lot of things but I'm not stupid.

"I am talking about you being able to just post about masonry without your rhetoric... "

Rhetoric: "The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively."

Why, thank you. I do believe that is the first time you have treated me with respect. Bravo. You may be redeemable after all.

" ...to avoid having to address your own claims"

My claims? Do elaborate. Quote me verbatim.


"When evidence is shown that your incorrect..."

One time, that happened. I acknowledge it. You had nothing to do with it, however. I first encountered you when you inserted yourself into the "conversation" that me and a poop-load of other Masons (25-1 - give or take) were engaged in. You muscled your way into it and started insulting me about my laughable "research" prowess.

"you do post after post of endless rhetoric"

Once again, thanks for the compliment. Are you trying to kiss up or something? I'm blushing

"avoiding the subject and refusing to address the evidence"

Evidence? Ohh, you mean like Masonic Light and 32nd-degree dude's assurances that Paul and Obama are NOT Masons, based upon nothing but the fact that they taut celebrities (usually) for promotional purposes?

You mean that sort of evidence?

Man, did I ever get my clock cleaned. These Masons are superstars!

"I think it has to do with this need you have to get the 'last word' on the subject"

LOL! I was lamenting that same fact ABOUT YOU just the other day.

"Either respond to the evidence against you"

Come again? And that would be?

"or stop with the rhetoric. Because every time you respond with rhetoric, I'm just going to point it out."

Well, thank you, again. Compliments are warmly welcomed.

ALightInDarkness:

Yeah, what exactly are his claims that you object to? I've completely lost track of this thread...

Fire_In_The_Mind_Of:

It's kind of impossible to prove a negative in the context of "Barack Obama is not a Freemason".

My own opinion is the same as that of Masonic Light.

I mean, if Barack Obama WAS a Mason, we would know about it. Don't you think that if he was a Mason, it would have been dredged up in the Democract Primaries campaign?

Your "last word" seems to have an awfully long ring-off. That said, do you have any intention of actually engaging in a meaningful discussion of a subject you're at ease in with someone else equally at-ease? You know....a conversation, a debate, a tĕte-à-tĕte?

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


There's nothing "at-ease" about the Masonic hegemony of the secret society forum at ATS. Nothing.

No matter what anyone posts regarding Masonry, they literally have walk on egg shells in this godforsaken place. I refuse to submit; I rebel. Period. You take me as is, or ignore me altogether.

The tête-à-tête?

C'est ce que nous faisons maintenant.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Well now, why would he address any claims hes made when he can always use:

Rhetoric:
–noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

You see? Even when using his rhetoric to deflect from the topic, hes still purposely obsfucating. I'm done. He started out being one of the most promising anti-masons I've seen in a while...and very quickly his facade has been exposed. I think some conspiracy theorists so desperately want to believe in a conspiracy theory, they make stuff up.

Some are here to opine on things for which they have no evidence....others are here to plug their own website and vanity press books as much as possible. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun - or the ATS forums.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

There's nothing "at-ease" about the Masonic hegemony of the secret society forum at ATS. Nothing.

No matter what anyone posts regarding Masonry, they literally have walk on egg shells in this godforsaken place. I refuse to submit; I rebel. Period. You take me as is, or ignore me altogether.

It's just a forum, dude. People can say what they want within the terms and conditions of the site's owners.

Nobody has to "walk on eggshells" either. They just have to be prepared for responses and critiques from people with differing opinions... just like any other forum.

What's the big deal?

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
vanity press books

Mr. Unpublished: I do not belong to a vanity press.

Email Trine Day with your "rhetoric" and see how they respond to your insults.

Tell Mr. Millegan how his latest author's success is insignificant:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #679 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories: (What's this?)
#2 in Books > Nonfiction > Current Events > Conspiracy Theories
#7 in Books > Nonfiction > Politics > International > Relations
#13 in Books > History > World

These are the usual stats for "vanity press" books, I guess.

reply to post by Roark


It's never a big deal if your a Mason.

Ya, I know.

But sure. This is all kinds of fun. We're learning a lot, aren't we?

Originally posted by Roark
It's kind of impossible to prove a negative in the context of "Barack Obama is not a Freemason".

My own opinion is the same as that of Masonic Light.

I don't follow the logic.

If I have a list of the 2008 Trilateral Commission members, for instance; I could prove a negative in regards to, say, well, anyone really. They just need not be on the list.