Terry Mauro

It is becoming clear that the US bailout has failed to provide confidence in the market. After dithering for several weeks the collapse in bank shares has forced Gordon Brown into action. This morning the government has announced details of a rescue package for the banking system worth up to £50bn ($88bn). It will initially make the extra capital available to eight of the UK's largest banks and building societies in return for preference shares in them. The banks are resisting the prospect of the government taking control over these companies. They are frightened that the government will insist on controlling the scale of the renumeration of the leaders of these banks. Although in a strong position, the UK government is unwilling to take control of the banks. I imagine the reason for this is that Brown has been offered a generous position as a bank director when he is finally removed from office. HBOS, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and RBS, the five failing banks, have issued statement welcoming the plan. The problem for Brown is that these measures will not work. The market has lost confidence in the banking sector and the FTSE 100 in London continues to fall. John McDonnell, the Labour MP is one of the few politicians talking any sense about the crisis. He issued this statement this morning: The government needs to act urgently to protect the British people against the economic turmoil that was not of their making, but is now resulting in them losing their jobs and struggling to pay their rent or mortgage and fuel bills. There should be no blank cheques to bail out the banks that contributed to this crisis. We are calling upon the government to implement a people's programme to protect our people from the crisis, not just the bankers, including: 1) Nationalising the banks and establishing democratic control over banking decisions, ensuring democratic representation on boards, ending the bonus binges, controlling executive pay and shareholder rewards; 2) Cutting interest rates significantly and immediately, restoring democratic control over key economic decision-making by not only widening the remit of the Bank of England beyond ensuring price stability to advising on the wider economic health of the country, but also reverting the Bank's role to being one voice among many others to be taken into account; 3) Securing people a home by converting repossessions to social rentals so that people have a "right to stay" in their homes and embarking on a massive council housebuilding programme; 4) Enhancing security in employment by ensuring people have a say over the future of the companies by strengthening rights and representation at work; 5) Bring fuel bills under control with price controls on the consumer price of gas and electricity, so that people are not being forced to choose between heating and eating this winter, with the threat of nationalisation if needed. The entire system is bankrupt. Look at all the derivative obligations sloshing around in the banking system. We are at a point of no return, no amount of money pumping will bail out the massive derivatives market. All they will do is create hyperinflation.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1847337,00.html I believe the jury convicted OJ Simpson because of the acquittal 13 years ago. At least unconsciously. OJ wasn't a smart guy. He should have stayed out of the public eye after the acquittal. Cameras followed him wherever he was. Just the night before, waiting for the wedding to begin, OJ actually walked to the cameras. He finally got the nerve. He was dressed to kill. And just hours later, he was in handcuffs and charged with armed robbery and kidnapping. I believe he was innocent of those murders. Someone sent me a book called OJ Is Guilty, But Not of Murder by William Dear. He was covering up for his son, an epileptic with intermittant rage disorder. The son was a chef and pulled a knife on his employer in the past. He had rage with several girlfriends. As he was a chef, he carried his knives with him. He didn't leave them in the restaurant. Chefs do not do that. Between 10 pm and 11 pm, no one knew where he was. He had been spying on Nicole as he had developed feelings for her. That night he was expecting Nicole, OJ and party to come to the restaurant where he worked. He was going to make them a meal they wouldn't forget. But no one showed up and he was very embarrassed. The restaurant closed early. The theory is the son went to her house, had words with her and killed her and Ron Goldman. He contacted OJ. OJ happened on the scene. He covered up for his son because being OJ, so popular, he felt he would be acquitted and he was. Now he's facing life for a stupid argument among men. Ridiculous. Kathy C You believe OJ was covering up for his son? How, by hiring a multi million dollar defense team that won him acquital? That means the Bundy murder case is still an open case and therefore OJ's son could still be arrested and charged, just as 1994. How did OJ entice the LAPD to arrest him and then charge him for the murders? This is just another crazy theory. And do you know what intermittant rage disorder is? It's BS and lots of it. Hollywood is notorious for murders of the type seen at Bundy in 1994. The Manson case, the Cotton Club murders in 1983.

Kathy, what happened to the four British young men with musical talent? I must have missed them. You dont mean the four lads that wrote "I wanna hold your hand" or "She loves me, yeah, yeah yeah". It's funny how the boomers swallow every JFK murder plot that comes down the pike but absolutely refuse to look at the radical cultural changes during the years following JFK's murder. Changes that they took part in, and followed without question We never make a critical examination of the cultural changes introduced during the 1960's. The very same period our best leaders were killed, our cities sent up in smoke (no pun intended) and gutted, and the begining of our industries being shut down. If anyone can look at Woodstock and tell me that wasn't a mass brainwashing operation, then they are very naive, lying or just plain stupid. What turned Wally and Beaver Cleaver into dope smoking "zombies"? PS- you might want to ask Len about his musical artist GG Allin. Now that was one talented "zombie". And Len promoted him, in between his rugged schedule of selling T-shirts. Today Len is involved in the heavy industry of manufacturing native Brazilian art. Where does he find the time? Terry, I don't understand your post. Are you putting down the Beatles, or saying an intelligence agency was involved in their success? As for myself, I don't swallow every JFK theory that comes along. But I do report it. As for what happened to the Beatles -- one of them was murdered while a survivor of the Bay of Pigs was on watch that night. Kathy C The counter culture is one topic that seems to be off limits, and I dont know why. Maybe "boomers" are still in denial? The conspiracy theories around JFK are a bunch of crock. Boomers are attracted to these kooky theories because it deflects the real issue behind the murder; and the boomers dont really want to deal with the reality of JFK's murder. They prefer "bullet diagrams" "autopsy pictures" and BS about the CIA and government. But JFK's murder has been reduced to the absurd.

I've read this theory too. Supposedly 4 British young men were programmed with musical talent and sent over here after Kennedy died. This was a big distraction to America -- the Beatles and everything that came with them, such as fashion, etc. It's a crock of s----. But the timing of the assassination and the Beatles' arrival will always stick in people's minds. What was that? Kathy C Kathy, what happened to the four British young men with musical talent? I must have missed them. You dont mean the four lads that wrote "I wanna hold your hand" or "She loves me, yeah, yeah yeah". It's funny how the boomers swallow every JFK murder plot that comes down the pike but absolutely refuse to look at the radical cultural changes during the years following JFK's murder. Changes they took part in, and followed without question We never make a critical examination of the cultural changes introduced during the 1960's. The very same period our best leaders were killed, our industrial cities sent up in smoke (no pun intended) and gutted, and the begining of our industries being shut down. It all strikes me as a case of irregular warfare against the United States. If anyone can look at Woodstock and tell me that wasn't a mass brainwashing operation, then they are very naive, lying or just plain stupid. What turned Wally and Beaver Cleaver into dope smoking "zombies"? My guess, it was the mass trauma and fear, resulting from the successive murders of JFK, MLK and RFK, the Vietnam war. and the urban riots. They broke under the pressure. PS- you might want to ask Len about his musical artist GG Allin. Now that was one talented "zombie". And Len promoted him, in between his rugged schedule of selling T-shirts. Today Len is involved in the heavy industry of manufacturing native Brazilian art. Where does he find the time? I'm still waiting on his promised documented "slanders". Here's GG performing one of his popular songs "Bite it Scum". Nothing like this in 1963 http://noolmusic.com/google_videos/gg_alli...it_you_scum.php

You should take your own advice. The British "Empire" was using the colony as a source for cheap raw materials and cheap labor in the form of black chattel slavery. That's free trade. You call it what you will but it's still looting. The "Empire" did not want America to develop our own industries, infrastructure etc. They wanted us to remain their backward little colony. They havent changed up to this very day. That's what the Revolution was about. The fight between the free trade looting of the Empire and the American system.

Are you accepting or declining? Do you really have $ 1000+ to blow? Why would I decline? I wont owe you $1,000.00 because it isnt true. As I stated prior, this will not be a vote. You bring the so called racist comments and we'll just have a look see. Bye, bye. So you propose to be the “judge and jury” as to whether the remarks he made were racist? Sorry I don’t think so, obviously you’ll just say the comments weren’t bigoted otherwise you’ll have to admit you were wrong, admit your messiah was wrong and fork over $ 1000+. We’ll need a mutually agreed upon 3rd party. Mike Tribe wrote Mike Banana no, parrot. She simply repeats what ever LaRouche says. Facts and common sense don’t come into play what ever he proclaims is uncritically accepted. LaRouchites make me think of the Communists in France and Norway (and perhaps elsewhere) who undermined their own countries’ resistance to the Nazis 1939 – 41 because of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Note that she rarely if ever documents her claims, in her mind it is not needed, what her guru says is considered gospel, you might as well discuss evolution with a fundamentalist. She even spouts on about terms she doesn’t seem to understand (mercantilist v. free trade) and is seeming so ignorant of history that she is unaware the Opium Wars occurred well after 1820 or that Adam Smith didn’t work for the British East Company and that it was decades before his book was put into practice. Look how long you've been gone! How many hours since you made the charge that Lyndon LaRouche is a racist. I'd think that if you had the knowlege to make such a charge, that you'd also be able to produce proof in relative short order. Yet here you are again going back over the same old BS. What has it been 24 hrs, 36 hrs and running? What's the problem, couldnt you find anything worth while at FactNet, Dennis King, and the Chip Berlet "slander factory"? Likely you are not certain whether you want to risk opening that can of worms. You know you'll have to pack up and leave. We have to establish the ground rules namely 1) Who will be the arbiter if you dispute that the comments were racist 2) What happens if the arbiter agrees the statements were racist but you refuse to carry out your promise (i.e. buy $ 1000 of product from me)? Don’t worry I have the quotes already. I’m just waiting for you to accept my terms. If you are so confident he never made any racists comments you should just at the opportunity to get me to quit the forum one is contingent on the other. I’m waiting for you. You cited the slave trade to disputed his classification of the British Empire as being mercantilist rather than free trade, one has nothing to do with the other the British got slaves from their colonies in Africa. Europe’s involvement in the African slave trade dates back to the early 1500’s, a couple of centuries before the inception of the notion of free trade. You cited the Opium Wars (1840’s) as evidence the UK was free trade in 1776 PS – I started a thread concerning you nonsense JFK assassination theory, even John wants to see your “evidence” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=155723 I said he made them in the 70's 15 years ago would be back to 1993, You cited the slave trade to disputed his classification of the British Empire as being mercantilist rather than free trade, one has nothing to do with the other the British got slaves from their colonies in Africa. Europe’s involvement in the African slave trade dates back to the early 1500’s, a couple of centuries before the inception of the notion of free trade. You cited the Opium Wars (1840’s) as evidence the UK was free trade in 1776 I made no mention of it (mercantilist). Either to embrace, compare or dispute (I had never heard the term before). This was the supposed contribution by nitwit educator Mike Tribe. I actually poked fun at him. Then I wrote "Later you had the British Opium Wars against China". But I am familiar with Britain's Opium War against China. In fact the Brits launched an Opium War against this country starting after the murder of John Kennedy in the mid 1960's, with their launching of the sex, rock, drug counter culture. You've been a customer of theirs for years isnt that right? QUOTE: post #22 You mean like their British East India Company? Good call Mike. You're the one lacking in knowlege about history. Slavery was based on the concept of free trade, and the British were behind the slave trade. Adam Smith an economist with the British East India Company penned his piece of garbage "Wealth of Nations" as a propoganda piece for the British Empire and their policy of free trade. I believe he wrote his thesis in 1776 (?) at the very time the American republic came into existence. Then later there is always the British Opium Wars against China. If we left history to guys like you we would believe that history changing developments like the American Revolution was based on some tea party or some other such nonsense, instead of the willful intent of the founding father to form a republic and break the grip of the "Empire" on the rest of the world. "firmly mercantilist" oh my, now thats impressive. Maybe what you might tell us is how the fascist movement in Spain came to be. And further if that tendency still plays a role in that country's politics today. This post has been edited by Terry Mauro: Yesterday, 12:43 PM

Are you accepting or declining? Do you really have $ 1000+ to blow? Why would I decline? I wont owe you $1,000.00 because it isnt true. As I stated prior, this will not be a vote. You bring the so called racist comments and we'll just have a look see. Bye, bye. So you propose to be the “judge and jury” as to whether the remarks he made were racist? Sorry I don’t think so, obviously you’ll just say the comments weren’t bigoted otherwise you’ll have to admit you were wrong, admit your messiah was wrong and fork over $ 1000+. We’ll need a mutually agreed upon 3rd party. Mike Tribe wrote Mike Banana no, parrot. She simply repeats what ever LaRouche says. Facts and common sense don’t come into play what ever he proclaims is uncritically accepted. LaRouchites make me think of the Communists in France and Norway (and perhaps elsewhere) who undermined their own countries’ resistance to the Nazis 1939 – 41 because of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Note that she rarely if ever documents her claims, in her mind it is not needed, what her guru says is considered gospel, you might as well discuss evolution with a fundamentalist. She even spouts on about terms she doesn’t seem to understand (mercantilist v. free trade) and is seeming so ignorant of history that she is unaware the Opium Wars occurred well after 1820 or that Adam Smith didn’t work for the British East Company and that it was decades before his book was put into practice. Look how long you've been gone! How many hours since you made the charge that Lyndon LaRouche is a racist. I'd think that if you had the knowlege to make such a charge, that you'd also be able to produce proof in relative short order. Yet here you are again going back over the same old BS. What has it been 24 hrs, 36 hrs and running? What's the problem, couldnt you find anything worth while at FactNet, Dennis King, and the Chip Berlet "slander factory"? Likely you are not certain whether you want to risk opening that can of worms. You know you'll have to pack up and leave. We have to establish the ground rules namely 1) Who will be the arbiter if you dispute that the comments were racist 2) What happens if the arbiter agrees the statements were racist but you refuse to carry out your promise (i.e. buy $ 1000 of product from me)? Don’t worry I have the quotes already. I’m just waiting for you to accept my terms. If you are so confident he never made any racists comments you should just at the opportunity to get me to quit the forum one is contingent on the other. I’m waiting for you. You cited the slave trade to disputed his classification of the British Empire as being mercantilist rather than free trade, one has nothing to do with the other the British got slaves from their colonies in Africa. Europe’s involvement in the African slave trade dates back to the early 1500’s, a couple of centuries before the inception of the notion of free trade. You cited the Opium Wars (1840’s) as evidence the UK was free trade in 1776 PS – I started a thread concerning you nonsense JFK assassination theory, even John wants to see your “evidence” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=155723 I said he made them in the 70's 15 years ago would be back to 1993, You're backing out on your wager. Just how tough is this? Did LaRouche refer to black and latino people as "n" or "spic"? How tough is this that you need to select an arbiter? I have a feeling that these slanders may require an explanation (provided by you) and it's this explanation that might require an "arbiter". These slanders will require someone of great intelligence to guide the reader through their "hidden meanings". Isnt that right Colby? And I have read his Campaigner magazine going back to the 1970's. Do you want me to poiint out the website where these publications are available? But this should be a pretty easy task for you. All you have to do is produce these racist comments from 1970's or the 1980's or the 1990's right up to the present. You've got four decades to chose from. This should be like a turkey shoot for you.

Inspector Closeau forgets the presence of private mercenary army Blackwater on the ground in New Orleans. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Blackwater_mer..._in_New_Orleans

Len, here is a racist rant by LaRouche. I thought I'd help you get the ball rolling. Shall we vote later? Maybe educator Mike Tribe will cast a vote? http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2004/3104mlk_talladega.html

Are you accepting or declining? Do you really have $ 1000+ to blow? Why would I decline? I wont owe you $1,000.00 because it isnt true. As I stated prior, this will not be a vote. You bring the so called racist comments and we'll just have a look see. Bye, bye. So you propose to be the “judge and jury” as to whether the remarks he made were racist? Sorry I don’t think so, obviously you’ll just say the comments weren’t bigoted otherwise you’ll have to admit you were wrong, admit your messiah was wrong and fork over $ 1000+. We’ll need a mutually agreed upon 3rd party. Mike Tribe wrote Mike Banana no, parrot. She simply repeats what ever LaRouche says. Facts and common sense don’t come into play what ever he proclaims is uncritically accepted. LaRouchites make me think of the Communists in France and Norway (and perhaps elsewhere) who undermined their own countries’ resistance to the Nazis 1939 – 41 because of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Note that she rarely if ever documents her claims, in her mind it is not needed, what her guru says is considered gospel, you might as well discuss evolution with a fundamentalist. She even spouts on about terms she doesn’t seem to understand (mercantilist v. free trade) and is seeming so ignorant of history that she is unaware the Opium Wars occurred well after 1820 or that Adam Smith didn’t work for the British East Company and that it was decades before his book was put into practice. You're copping out. Let's see these racist comments by LaRouche. You know he rarely makes these remarks in public anymore! What a clown.

Are you accepting or declining? Do you really have $ 1000+ to blow? Why would I decline? I wont owe you $1,000.00 because it isnt true. As I stated prior, this will not be a vote. You bring the so called racist comments and we'll just have a look see. Bye, bye. So you propose to be the “judge and jury” as to whether the remarks he made were racist? Sorry I don’t think so, obviously you’ll just say the comments weren’t bigoted otherwise you’ll have to admit you were wrong, admit your messiah was wrong and fork over $ 1000+. We’ll need a mutually agreed upon 3rd party. Mike Tribe wrote Mike Banana no, parrot. She simply repeats what ever LaRouche says. Facts and common sense don’t come into play what ever he proclaims is uncritically accepted. LaRouchites make me think of the Communists in France and Norway (and perhaps elsewhere) who undermined their own countries’ resistance to the Nazis 1939 – 41 because of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Note that she rarely if ever documents her claims, in her mind it is not needed, what her guru says is considered gospel, you might as well discuss evolution with a fundamentalist. She even spouts on about terms she doesn’t seem to understand (mercantilist v. free trade) and is seeming so ignorant of history that she is unaware the Opium Wars occurred well after 1820 or that Adam Smith didn’t work for the British East Company and that it was decades before his book was put into practice. Look how long you've been gone! How many hours since you made the charge that Lyndon LaRouche is a racist. I'd think that if you had the knowlege to make such a charge, that you'd also be able to produce proof in relative short order. Yet here you are again going back over the same old BS. What has it been 24 hrs, 36 hrs and running? What's the problem, couldnt you find anything worth while at FactNet, Dennis King, and the Chip Berlet "slander factory"? Likely you are not certain whether you want to risk opening that can of worms. You know you'll have to pack up and leave. I never made any issue regarding "mercantilist vs free trade". That was Mike Tribes meaningless drivel. Leave it to you to grab ahold of something so meaningless. And I know exactly the period of Britain's opium war against China. You should read my post instead of running at the mouth like GG Allin's rear end on stage. In short you havent delivered the goods. Where are the racist remarks made by Lyndon LaRouche? C'mon Mr. Sophist, let's see your argument/proof. Will I have to wait another 2-3 days before you produce your proof? How difficult is it to produce a quote from a known racist? I've subscribed to his EIR magazine for 15 years. That's 750 weekly issues and I've yet to detect any direct or even implied racism by LaRouche. I also own 20 books published by LaRouche and his organization, and again nothing I can find suggests that he is a racist. I've also watched and listened to his public speeches (including his tribute to MLK in front of an all black audience), which are available in part on youtube. You'd think this would be a great way to prove your charge of racism. But Len how difficult a project is this for you? You should have been able to respond the moment I challenged your lies.

Himself, and David Ricardo, are still qouted today by the freemarket capitalist vipers who have delivered us to this sorry state. if they really wish to understand how markets work, they should give ol Karl a perusal. That's right, "The Invisible Hand" or "The little green men under the floor board who magically control the economy". It's insane, but people believe it. I just read a headline posted at MSN and it stated that 50% of the US population earns less than $32K per year. I guess the "Little Green Men" of Adam Smith decided not to be kind to the lower 50% income brackets in the United States. With Free Trade you are not allowed to intervene into economic policy to lift the living standards of the population. You also wonder under Free Trade and "magic markets" just how a bridge or rail system gets built. I thought these infrastructure projects were the work of governments committed to the general welfare. With the free trade system collapsing we may see governments taking a closer look at the axioms behind this stupid idea of "magic markets". Let's put Adam Smith in moth balls for an eternity.

You mean like their British East India Company? Good call Mike. You're the one lacking in knowlege about history. Slavery was based on the concept of free trade, and the British were behind the slave trade. Adam Smith an economist with the British East India Company penned his piece of garbage "Wealth of Nations" as a propoganda piece for the British Empire and their policy of free trade. I believe he wrote his thesis in 1776 (?) at the very time the American republic came into existence. Then later there is always the British Opium Wars against China. If we left history to guys like you we would believe that history changing developments like the American Revolution was based on some tea party or some other such nonsense, instead of the willful intent of the founding father to form a republic and break the grip of the "Empire" on the rest of the world. "firmly mercantilist" oh my, now thats impressive. Maybe what you might tell us is how the fascist movement in Spain came to be. And further if that tendency still plays a role in that country's politics today.

Do your own homework Tribe; you're supposed to be an educator. You might start with his father, then you might look at the pedigree of the people who placed him into office. You might also try and understand what he is being used for. Then you might want to review his idea of leadership, and the role of government. You might also want to review his actions as Governor of California. You may also want to review the history of his in-laws the Kennedy's when it comes to facist proclivities. The recall of California Governor Davis would not have been possible without the help of the Kennedy political machine. And after all the family patriarch Joe Kennedy Sr. had a long history of being chummy with members of the Nazi party. You might say Arnold was the fascist son Joe Kennedy never had. I must say I dont think much of your talents and skill as an academic. The only thing I've seen you do here is whine.

I described him and LaRouche as “obscure men” you seemed to be citing his Wikipedia entry to refute that; I have seen no evidence he was/is known outside economic circles. If you are vauge you can’t blame people for not figuring what points you are trying to make. AFAIK not even LaRouche claims he said that, you’re making things up now. There are no reliable accounts of what was said during the debate, the only versions we have come from LaRouche himself several years after the fact. Did you actually read the article you linked beyond the 1st paragraph? Here’s the 2nd: “They [schwarzenegger and California's top finance officials] have been worried that the credit market will hurt the state's ability to get short-term loans to cover basic operating expenses, a step California takes each fall until the bulk of its tax revenue arrives in the spring.” From later in the article “California seeks short-term loans every year” To make a long story short getting short term loans from the private sector (normally in the form of bonds) every year is SOP in California but due to credit crunch Arnie is appealing to Paulson. Apparently an aggravating factor is that “state lawmakers delayed passing a budget for nearly three months.” As Mike and David pointing out calling him a Hitler or a Nazi because he cut the budget is plain stupid. Davis wanted to cut the budget as well, is he a Nazi too? Rubbish Not even your guru claims he said that. Of course you do by puffing Lerner you by extension puff Larouche. I actually agree with some of what he says (his opposition to Bush, the invasion of Iraq, and deregulation of the financial sector) but most of it is rubbish. You are such a LaRouche cultist you blindly accept his every pronouncement as ‘gospel’. Other than our “wager” I’m done with this topic unless you produce evidence from sources not affiliated with Larouche. You're always "done" with my topics. Never mind the threats because you'll be done when you cant deliver the goods. I await the racist comments by LaRouche. This should be great fun. Len Colby the great LaRouche expert. For the last time, I called Arnold Schwarzenegger a nazi because that's precisely what he is. You dont need to create a fraudulent premise, attribute it to me, and commence to argue based on your false premise. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a nazi. Is that clear enough for you?

Classic. "He has expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly...... That's like saying "GG Allins audience was over the age of 21, "for the most part". Quite true both were correct statements. Most GG shows I was involved in were 21 plus because bar/club owners make more money at shows they can sell booze at. As anyone involved in the club/bar music scene can tell you most if not all “the door” goes to the bands, the venue owner gets his profit from the bar. You bring me one racist quote made by LaRouche and I'll purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art. 3rd party gossip does not qualify. Do you really have $1,000.00 plus in disposable cash? Not long ago you were whining about being broke. If you certify that you do I’ll make you a deal. 1) I will post racist comments made by LaRouche (often under his pseudonym Lyn Marcus/L. Marcus) in pamphlets, articles, internal documents etc put out by the NCLC, EIR and/or other LaRouche groups. These will be backed by scans (in jpg, pdf and perhaps other formats) of the aforementioned documents. 2) With in 2 weeks of my doing so you will “purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art” from me and pay for shipping. 3) If you are unable or unwilling to fulfill your end of the bargain you will quit or accept expulsion from the forum if John or Andy are willing to enforce our “deal”. 4) If I am unable to produce any such comments I will quit or accept expulsion from the forum if John or Andy are willing to enforce our “deal”. 5) If you don’t acknowledge that the comments by LaRouche that I post were racist we will accept arbitration by any moderators, administrators or members of this forum (mutually agreed upon) willing to accept such a role. i. If they agree that at least one of the statements was racist 2) and 3) above comes into effect. ii. If they indicate that none of them were racist 4) will come into effect. Essentially your argument is the legal drinking age at clubs was 21 years old. Now that's a great argument. Any club that would feature GG Allin is not likely to worry about legal drinking age. PS- hurry back with your racist comments. You should have a bunch of them seeing how you're an expert on LaRouche. The ADL also has also exhibited this same expertise.

Are you accepting or declining? Do you really have $ 1000+ to blow? Why would I decline? I wont owe you $1,000.00 because it isnt true. As I stated prior, this will not be a vote. You bring the so called racist comments and we'll just have a look see. Bye, bye.

Classic. "He has expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly...... That's like saying "GG Allins audience was over the age of 21, "for the most part". Quite true both were correct statements. Most GG shows I was involved in were 21 plus because bar/club owners make more money at shows they can sell booze at. As anyone involved in the club/bar music scene can tell you most if not all “the door” goes to the bands, the venue owner gets his profit from the bar. You bring me one racist quote made by LaRouche and I'll purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art. 3rd party gossip does not qualify. Do you really have $1,000.00 plus in disposable cash? Not long ago you were whining about being broke. If you certify that you do I’ll make you a deal. 1) I will post racist comments made by LaRouche (often under his pseudonym Lyn Marcus/L. Marcus) in pamphlets, articles, internal documents etc put out by the NCLC, EIR and/or other LaRouche groups. These will be backed by scans (in jpg, pdf and perhaps other formats) of the aforementioned documents. 2) With in 2 weeks of my doing so you will “purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art” from me and pay for shipping. 3) If you are unable or unwilling to fulfill your end of the bargain you will quit or accept expulsion from the forum if John or Andy are willing to enforce our “deal”. 4) If I am unable to produce any such comments I will quit or accept expulsion from the forum if John or Andy are willing to enforce our “deal”. 5) If you don’t acknowledge that the comments by LaRouche that I post were racist we will accept arbitration by any moderators, administrators or members of this forum (mutually agreed upon) willing to accept such a role. i. If they agree that at least one of the statements was racist 2) and 3) above comes into effect. ii. If they indicate that none of them were racist 4) will come into effect. Why must I repeat myself? Knock yourself out. PS- we will note vote by popular opinion. We will stick to the truth. Bye, bye.

Mike, I only call Arnold Schwarzenegger a nazi because that is precisely what he is. It is not intended as an insult or to upset the forum members. I use the term nazi in the strictest sense of the word. Like calling a "glass of milk" a "glass of milk". As far as Schacht, it would appear that there is conflicting accounts of his birthplace. Like Colby you try and twist a fact to make it appear important. The truth is Schacht was no German creation, he had lived in America with his father and was an asset of the Bank of England and the House of Morgan. His job was to bring the Wall Street and London bankers to support Adolph Hitler to Chancellor of Germany. A Germany that had been a staunch allie of the United States during the 19th century. You dont know your history. Unholy Trinity:The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks Mark Aarons and John Loftus, NY: St. Martin's Griffin, 1991, 1998, p.294.) "It is hard to believe now, but fifty or sixty years ago, Nazism was seen as a good thing by many foreign investors. Fascism, so it was thought, was simply an external manifestation of the attitudes of the conservative German people who were traditionally hostile towards Communistst and labor unions. Some of the most prominent and respected German industrialists -- such as the Thyssen family and the Brooklyn-born Hjalmar Schacht -- reassured the American investors that Hitler was simply 'a dog on a chain' to keep the left out of power in Germany."

I've never understood references to "capitalism vs "socialism". This is as foolish as seeing things as being"conservative" or "liberal". None of it describes reality. The United States was founded on "The American System of Political Economy". We are a republic, not a democracy. We broke with the British Empire, and their Free Trade system of "looting". We built infrastructure, made capital improvments and increased the productive powers of labor. We had a "credit system" not a "monetary system". After JFK was murdered (by the British), they turned back the clock on progress, taking down our productive economy and replacing it with a "post industrial economy". They introduced the "sex, rock, drug counter culture"(The British Invasion), along with environmentalism. All this nonsense has worked to destroy our nation. What happened with the bailout, we tossed out the constitution in favor of a bankers dictatorship. We either go the way of FDR or we will be faced with a dark age like that of the 14th century in Europe.

Though your faulty analogy seems to have confused David (I imagine he assumed Schact was a regional leader) I wrote that you called Schwarzenegger Hitler. A stupid and vile comparison even if I don't agree with his politics. It's amazing that LaRouche and his followers still rant about an obscure debate between two obscure men. The facts that there was no contemporary coverage and all reports came years later from Larouche (and his followers) are indicative of importance anybody else put on it even then let alone 37 years later. As usual you confuse your opinion with truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba_Lerner So Lerner has a short entry in Wikipedia that doesn’t make him an important economist. All Google hits I found about the debate are on pro-Larouche sites, his Wikipedia bio (which had numerous mirrors) or anti-Laroche sites. Yet your messiah and his disciples would have us believe this obscure encounter was pivotal event in post-war history. Actually Shacht was born in Schleswig-Holstein. Can you provide a citation for that quote not from your guru or one of his followers. Even so you are misinterpreting the supposed quote. I have no idea what you are babbling about. As I said I’m not a fan of his politics but cutting the budget doesn’t make him the equivalent of Hitler and he is not responsible for the current credit crisis. A quick Googling revealed the my recollection that the state was in debt before he became governor and even his predecessor a liberal Democrat proposed steep budget cuts was correct*. In any case $ 7 billion is less than 5% of the state budget. If he is so bad why was he re-elected by a wide margin in an overwhelmingly Democratic state during an election (2006) that tilted Democratic? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9649C8B63 He was in 1971 No that’s your misinterpretation, nowhere did I indicate Don believed McKinney’s stupid theory. To the contrary he was trying to "stain" Biden and Gore for stupid remarks and I was hoping to get him to acknowledge that she had made a remark exponentially stupider than anything they’d said. Colby, you're a hack. Nowhere did I ever state that I was promoting the credentials of Abba Lerner. What was of interest, was that here you had a well known Keynsian economist of the time blurting out that Hitler was just a "hitman" for the austerity policy of Brooklyn born banker Hjalmar Schact and his Wall Street and London banker friends. And $7 billion represents 5% of the California state budget. Good lap dog, but what's the point? The issue is that California is bankrupt and in need of bail out money. In fact the entire US economy is bankrupt. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a nazi. Don't give me your BS about agreeing with this policy or not agreeing with that policy. He is a straight up nazi, placed in office by people like George Schultz. And he is there for the very same reason exposed by economist Abba Lerner back in 1971. And that was the point of my posting about Abba Lerner. I never had any intent of puffing up Lerner or any such thing of that sort. You're such a rabid LaRouche hater, to the point of being irrational that you attack at the very sight of his name. And all this BS is from a punk who went around promoting satan! And to this day remains proud of it.

I think numerous more important factors to take into account when evaluating a candidate, # 1 for me is the policies they will support # 2 their intelligence and ability to think clearly and third their personal character. During the general election those are the big three when voting in a primary electability would be a major concern and perhaps the main factor. Verbal flubs especially those when speaking spontaneously, wouldn’t ‘make it on the radar’. Sorry I didn’t use of the word would cause personal offense, I won’t use it again. Holding controversial views and subscribing to some conspiracy theories is one thing but believing something completely illogical is another. I don’t want to drag this thread further astray, I though you’d realizes the nonsensicality of her “theory”. This calls her critical thinking into question as much as if she back “no plane” theories. That was 90% of the DC press corps nationwide the percentage were less but still tilted Democrat so you have a point. That in and of itself does not demonstrate they act in a biased fashion. If that were the case why is McCain’s checkered passed virtually ignored and why was no effort made to point out that most times he gave his stump speech he gave Kinnock credit? Why has the evidence the Bush Administration steered intelligence on Iraq gotten so little press? IMO Liberals tend to idealists and try to put their passions aside, the liberal ACLU fights just as hard (if not harder) for the 1st amendment rights of rightwing fringe groups as it does for leftist ones. It you watch any of the “left”/right pundit shows the liberals tend to be more neutral and examine both sides of the issue, the conservatives have no qualms about flaunting their biases. I’ll take your word for it perhaps the makers are more concerned with the future of the planet than personality. Oh and now that we’re on the subject Gore never claimed to have “invented the Internet”, that was a rightwing myth. He was mocked on Futurama made by the same people as the Simpsons http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...qK5HuqAKQhrybDA No Larouche has a 2nd rate mind, is a paranoid megalomaniac and probably suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly he has never AFAIK renounced or apologized for them. Classic. "He has expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly...... That's like saying "GG Allins audience was over the age of 21, "for the most part". You bring me one racist quote made by LaRouche and I'll purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art. 3rd party gossip does not qualify.

That was one of the stupidest videos I’ve ever seen, how does a “film maker” who makes flatulence jokes expect to be taken seriously? Absolutely no evidence is presented for the myriad of claims, though for the “true believers” none is needed the pronouncements of their messiah and his leading disciples is taken as gospel. The “expert” interviewed is a LaRouchite, no mention is made of his scientific qualifications on his website so it’s safe to assume he doesn’t have any. The overwhelming consensus among qualified scientists is that global warming is a serious problem and that human activity is a major factor. Though many on the right resisted these notions many if not most now accept this. Opposition is mostly limited to those on the political fringes, people who work for carbon emitting industries and a handful of scientists many/most of whom are associated with the aforementioned companies. Bangladesh increasing in size due to silting doesn't disprove the potential for the country to be swallowed up if sea levels rise. To the contrary silt deposits tend to low lying. From what I gather though I haven’t looked into this in quite a while, opinions concerning nuclear energy are more divided the principle dangers being potential accidents and what to do with the waste. Last time I checked (but that was decades ago) the high cost of constructing plants meant that nuclear power often was’t economically viable LaRouche and his followers love comparing people they don’t like to Hitler or other Nazis but the two have a lot in common. Both: Are/were leaders of messianic like personality cults based on the notion that only they offer the solutions for their nations’ problems Have/had a paranoid fixation on Jewish bankers and financiers Have/had “Youth Movements” named after them Are/were Germanophiles Hate(d) Communists (though LaRouche used to be one). Used violence against political opponents. Speaking of stupid video's this one takes the cake. Your taste in art, politics, and economics is without equal. http://video.aol.com/video-detail/gg-allin...ylon/2637330701 Here is another "artist" straight out of the Len Colby school of modern art. You get some great insight into the mind of Len Colby by reviewing what he calls "art". Next we'll get the argument that Yoko Ono is a great artist. http://www.cynthiaplastercaster.com/ Keep selling those T-Shirts!

Though your faulty analogy seems to have confused David (I imagine he assumed Schact was a regional leader) I wrote that you called Schwarzenegger Hitler. A stupid and vile comparison even if I don't agree with his politics. It's amazing that LaRouche and his followers still rant about an obscure debate between two obscure men. The facts that there was no contemporary coverage and all reports came years later from Larouche (and his followers) are indicative of importance anybody else put on it even then let alone 37 years later. As usual you confuse your opinion with truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba_Lerner Why do you think Hitler was placed intp power? As Abba Lerner admitted some 37 years ago, Hitler was placed into power to enforce the austerity policies of Brooklyn born banker Horace Greely Shacht. That was the point of my posting Lerner's statement from 1971. You try and switch the subject by disputing a statement that I never made. But that's the purpose of placing Arnold Schwarzennegger into politics. To act as an Adolph Hitler on behalf of the bankrupt bankers enforcing brutal austerity on the population of California. I suppose the irony is lost on you that after all the brutal "budget cuts" against education, medical care, and other entitlement programs, the state of California is still in need of a $7 billion bail out. You also pretend to be an expert on Lyndon LaRouche when in fact your'e just repeating old worn out gossip from the ADL and their Dope networks. Anyone who promoted the vile satanic outlook of GG Allin to young people, and still defends his actions today as a 43 year old psuedo intellectual, has no right to point his finger at anyone. LaRouche is hardly an unknown political figure. That you dont like him is of no concern. As far as your debating skills I had to laugh when I saw how you slipped in the youtube video of Cynthia McKinney; trying somehow to stain Don Jeffries with McKinney's statements. You think these kinds of tricks are the way to win your arguments. You try and debate arguments your opponents never make. If some reader is not paying attention while following your debate with Don Jeffries they might think that Don endorsed McKinney's claim. Of course that wasnt the case. It was just Len Colby pulling the same old stunt.

Here's an expose on Al Gore that cuts through all the B.S.