Blatant PAC shilling in /r/conspiracy. Evidence provided.
38 2016-05-16 by EaterOfSound
/u/LarouchePAC2016 LaRouche Political Action Committee 2016
Redditor for 23 days.
Lyndon LaRouche said that Hillary Clinton’s deeds prove that she is best qualified to be the next President of the USA.
From: Why Hillary has to become president
See more at:
Lyndon LaRouche has provided the intellectual and political leadership in the fight for a new international economic order for the planet. . .
LaRouche predicts that the present, or then-existing, international monetary system of the I.M.F., would inevitably go bankrupt, and should be replaced by a different credit-creating institution, namely, an International Development Bank (I.D.B.)
https://larouchepac.com/new-economic-order
Helga Zepp-LaRouche founded the Schiller Institute in Germany in 1984.
Really? The Shiller Institue? Of course this is transliteration, but worth a laugh.
Three years later, LaRouche blamed his criminal indictment on the NSC, saying he had been in conflict with Oliver North over LaRouche's opposition to the Nicaraguan Contras.[111] According to a LaRouche publication, a court-ordered search of North's files produced a May 1986 telex from Iran–Contra defendant General Richard Secord, discussing the gathering of information to be used against LaRouche.[112] King states that LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review was the first to report on important details of the Iran–Contra affair, predicting that a major scandal was about to break months before mainstream media picked up on the story.
Let's see what Col. North has to say about all this:
He respectfully requests we do not touch upon that area. A sensitive program that was funded by the Iran-Contra scandal. Wouldn't want that to get out.
This happened to come up while talking about something near and dear to Mr. North, emergency management.
Original post: https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4jiuo5/28_pages_28_pages_28_pages_28_pages_28_pages_how/
16 comments
3 callthezoo 2016-05-16
This guy showed up in my scalia thread to say scalia was actually old and fat and therefore no autopsy was needed. I think that might have been have his first reddit post? Thought it was pretty weird at the time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4fyzwg/chelsea_clinton_now_that_scalias_gone_we_can/.compact
1 Juan__Lennon 2016-05-16
I've already had a run in with this liar. You can see right through them.
0 LarouchePAC2016 2016-05-16
what did they lie about?
1 Juan__Lennon 2016-05-16
Sock failure.
1 LarouchePAC2016 2016-05-16
Yeah but it's very difficult to infer someone else's motivations & enforce "thought crime." Did this person say or do anything harmful?
1 [deleted] 2016-05-16
[removed]
1 cawclot 2016-05-16
Settle down, kid.
0 Juan__Lennon 2016-05-16
No. We have ZERO tolerance for shills. Especially the idiots who can't make themselves be believable for even just a single post.
1 SovereignMan 2016-05-16
Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed. 1st warning.
1 [deleted] 2016-05-16
[removed]
1 SovereignMan 2016-05-16
Rule 10. Removed. 1st warning.
1 callthezoo 2016-05-16
This guy showed up in my scalia thread to say scalia was actually old and fat and therefore no autopsy was needed. I think that might have been have his first reddit post? Thought it was pretty weird at the time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4fyzwg/chelsea_clinton_now_that_scalias_gone_we_can/.compact
0 LarouchePAC2016 2016-05-16
I'm having trouble finding that quote on the linked thread
0 ILikeCandy 2016-05-16
Where is the evidence? Not sure I understand.... Also, how is this not a blatant violation of Rule #10?
2 EaterOfSound 2016-05-16
Th evidence is provided in the six links in combination with the users post history.
I did not attack anyone, I provided evidence to support a claim with no direct personal attack whatsoever. "Can be viewed as an attack, depending on context" is the operative phrase here. The manner in which the post is structured clearly indicates no such attack or call for any such action.
0 ILikeCandy 2016-05-16
So where is the evidence? I still don't understand what there is to tie the user to the PAC. Post history is not evidence of a tie. Thanks
2 EaterOfSound 2016-05-16
Th evidence is provided in the six links in combination with the users post history.
I did not attack anyone, I provided evidence to support a claim with no direct personal attack whatsoever. "Can be viewed as an attack, depending on context" is the operative phrase here. The manner in which the post is structured clearly indicates no such attack or call for any such action.