Terry Mauro Posted October 7, 2008 Author Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) Why must I repeat myself? Knock yourself out. PS- we will note vote by popular opinion. We will stick to the truth. Bye, bye. 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 You are a banana. 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. 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. 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've subscribed to his EIR magazine for 15 years. 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 Edited October 7, 2008 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tribe Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) It doesn't surprise me that you had never heard of the term mercantilist. Your historical knowledge would seem to be very limited indeed. There are some reputable historians connected to this forum. Perhaps some of them could elucidate these dark holes in your knowledge. But, then again, perhaps not... Edited October 7, 2008 by Mike Tribe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 7, 2008 Author Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) It doesn't surprise me that you had never heard of the term mercantilist. Your historical knowledge would seem to be very limited indeed. There are some reputable historians connected to this forum. Perhaps some of them could elucidate these dark holes in your knowledge. But, then again, perhaps not... 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. Edited October 8, 2008 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 (edited) I made no mention of it (mercantilist). Either to embrace, compare or dispute (I had never heard the term before). For some one venturing an opinion on the subject you should know what mercantilist means, this is not some obscure concept but rather something you were supposed to have learned a few times in junior high school and high school history. You obviously have no idea what free trade means either Main Entry: free trade Function: noun Date: 1655 : trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods with tariffs used only as a source of revenue http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dict...ry/free%20trade free trade - Definition International business not restrained by government interference or regulation, such as duties. http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getwo...rm=free%20trade Geography Dictionary: free trade Trade between countries which takes place completely free of restrictions. Such trade allows specialization in member states of free trade areas, and lowers costs because, together with competition, the markets are increased. Within a free trade area there are no barriers, such as tariffs and quotas. However, there is not necessarily a common policy on trade with countries outside the free trade area. See efta, world trade organization. Political Dictionary: free trade The absence of barriers to international trade. Up to the nineteenth century, under the system of mercantilism, Europeans faced two main kinds of barriers to trade: first, there were duties, quotas, and prohibitions restricting the movement of goods from one customs area to another; second, controls on participation in particular trades imposed by corporations like the British or Dutch East India Companies. 1813 the British East India Company was deprived of its monopoly over trade between Britain and India. Following a prolonged public campaign, the repeal of the Corn Laws 1846 opened the British market to cheap foreign grain. The exemplary force of these events was all the greater because they appeared to be applications of the cogent and appealing liberal economic theories of Adam Smith and David Ricardo… […] Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: free trade Policy in which a government does not discriminate against imports or interfere with exports. A free-trade policy does not necessarily imply that the government abandons all control and taxation of imports and exports, but rather that it refrains from actions specifically designed to hinder international trade, such as tariff barriers, currency restrictions, and import quotas. The theoretical case for free trade is based on Adam Smith's argument that the division of labour among countries leads to specialization, greater efficiency, and higher aggregate production. The way to foster such a division of labour, Smith believed, is to allow nations to make and sell whatever products can compete successfully in an international market. http://www.answers.com/topic/free-trade The various restrictions the British placed on commerce, trade and industry in the colonies were mercantilist violations of free trade. And you are right, just as every school child in America is taught, these restrictions were one of the major reasons for the revolution. The patriots however were fighting FOR free trade. Now you can make up your own definitions for what ever word or phrase you choose but when you disagree with people who use them correctly you (not they) are displaying your ignorance. ... 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? Yes you finally get something right, yes with pride! However my drug consumption has waned considerably since my youth. But isn't a bit a ironic that someone who has made posts referring to the men she's had and who is a fan of such drug gobbling rockers as Tom Petty and the Eagles would object? Edited October 8, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 (edited) 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? No as far as I know your messiah was never so crude as to use racial epitaphs publicly, though I wouldn’t be surprised if he did do so with his Klan buddies. Any reasonable person however would identify his comments as racist. But you as a LaRouche cultist who stands to loose over $ 1000 will simply deny this, hence the need for a neutral 3rd party. And no I’m not “backing down” My position remains unchanged see post # 12. One depends on the other, if you want a chance to get me to quit the forum you have to do so on my terms. Now one would think if you were so sure that LaRouche never said anything that could be interpreted as racist you would jump at the chance to be rid of me but your reluctance shows deep down perhaps you’re not so sure Edited October 8, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 I made no mention of it (mercantilist). Either to embrace, compare or dispute (I had never heard the term before). For some one venturing an opinion on the subject you should know what mercantilist means, this is not some obscure concept but rather something you were supposed to have learned a few times in junior high school and high school history. You obviously have no idea what free trade means either Main Entry: free trade Function: noun Date: 1655 : trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods with tariffs used only as a source of revenue http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dict...ry/free%20trade free trade - Definition International business not restrained by government interference or regulation, such as duties. http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getwo...rm=free%20trade Geography Dictionary: free trade Trade between countries which takes place completely free of restrictions. Such trade allows specialization in member states of free trade areas, and lowers costs because, together with competition, the markets are increased. Within a free trade area there are no barriers, such as tariffs and quotas. However, there is not necessarily a common policy on trade with countries outside the free trade area. See efta, world trade organization. Political Dictionary: free trade The absence of barriers to international trade. Up to the nineteenth century, under the system of mercantilism, Europeans faced two main kinds of barriers to trade: first, there were duties, quotas, and prohibitions restricting the movement of goods from one customs area to another; second, controls on participation in particular trades imposed by corporations like the British or Dutch East India Companies. 1813 the British East India Company was deprived of its monopoly over trade between Britain and India. Following a prolonged public campaign, the repeal of the Corn Laws 1846 opened the British market to cheap foreign grain. The exemplary force of these events was all the greater because they appeared to be applications of the cogent and appealing liberal economic theories of Adam Smith and David Ricardo… […] Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: free trade Policy in which a government does not discriminate against imports or interfere with exports. A free-trade policy does not necessarily imply that the government abandons all control and taxation of imports and exports, but rather that it refrains from actions specifically designed to hinder international trade, such as tariff barriers, currency restrictions, and import quotas. The theoretical case for free trade is based on Adam Smith's argument that the division of labour among countries leads to specialization, greater efficiency, and higher aggregate production. The way to foster such a division of labour, Smith believed, is to allow nations to make and sell whatever products can compete successfully in an international market. http://www.answers.com/topic/free-trade The various restrictions the British placed on commerce, trade and industry in the colonies were mercantilist violations of free trade. And you are right, just as every school child in America is taught, these restrictions were one of the major reasons for the revolution. The patriots however were fighting FOR free trade. Now you can make up your own definitions for what ever word or phrase you choose but when you disagree with people who use them correctly you (not they) are displaying your ignorance. ... 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? Yes you finally get something right, yes with pride! However my drug consumption has waned considerably since my youth. But isn't a bit a ironic that someone who has made posts referring to the men she's had and who is a fan of such drug gobbling rockers as Tom Petty and the Eagles would object? Where are the LaRouche slanders that you promised? Quit your blabbing and stick to the wager. You're trying to buy time because otherwise you would be gone by now. Why dont you till the fertile field of LaRouche slanders instead of trying to give me a history lesson? You hinted you were going back to the 1970's, for some vintage LaRouche racism. But so far nothing. The man is 86 years old and a racist, so it shouldnt be difficult for you to locate a few of his more choice comments. Bye, bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) 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? No as far as I know your messiah was never so crude as to use racial epitaphs publicly, though I wouldn’t be surprised if he did do so with his Klan buddies. Any reasonable person however would identify his comments as racist. But you as a LaRouche cultist who stands to loose over $ 1000 will simply deny this, hence the need for a neutral 3rd party. And no I’m not “backing down” My position remains unchanged see post # 12. One depends on the other, if you want a chance to get me to quit the forum you have to do so on my terms. Now one would think if you were so sure that LaRouche never said anything that could be interpreted as racist you would jump at the chance to be rid of me but your reluctance shows deep down perhaps you’re not so sure The guy who promoted GG Allin has a "crude meter"? You're funnier than you think. Such a serious scholar you are. Now LaRouche has Klan connections. Why would you need a 3rd party to decipher a racist comment or outlook? I'll bet your "hidden booty" of slanders are not the run of the mill variety. We will probably require your help in order to see through to LaRouche's hidden meaning. Why not just presentyour proof or be a man and hit the road? Edited October 9, 2008 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) For some one venturing an opinion on the subject you should know what mercantilist means, this is not some obscure concept but rather something you were supposed to have learned a few times in junior high school and high school history. FWIW, I have never heard of the term either. I don't claim to have a strong grasp of history, either. Is it something related specifically to US history? Edited October 9, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 For some one venturing an opinion on the subject you should know what mercantilist means, this is not some obscure concept but rather something you were supposed to have learned a few times in junior high school and high school history. FWIW, I have never heard of the term either. I don't claim to have a strong grasp of history, either. Is it something related specifically to US history? Webster’s defines mercantilism as “…an economic system developing during the decay of feudalism to unify and increase the power and especially the monetary wealth of a nation by a strict governmental regulation of the entire national economy usually through policies designed to secure an accumulation of bullion, a favorable balance of trade, the development of agriculture and manufactures, and the establishment of foreign trading monopolies.” http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dict...ry/mercantilism According to U-S-History.com: “Mercantilism was the theory of trade espoused by the major European powers from roughly 1500 to 1800. It advocated that a nation should export more than it imported and accumulate bullion (especially gold) to make up the difference. The exportation of finished goods was favored over extractive industries like farming. […] In England the application of mercantilist theory led to…alienation in the colonies. The theory of mercantilism was put into practice in the English colonies through the Navigation Acts. ________________________________________ Opposition to mercantilism was contained in the doctrine of laissez faire” [i.e. free trade – Len] http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h622.html Note that the end of mercantilism, around 1800, corresponds to end of colonialism in the US and its beginnings in Australia. Thus it is natural that an Australian not to have heard of it. Since however this shaped the colonization of the US and was one of the major reasons for the independence movement it is a concept repeatedly taught in history class in America from about 7th grade onwards. I imagine you would look a word, you don’t understand, up before calling someone an idiot for using it and unlike Terry know what free trade means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Where are the LaRouche slanders that you promised? Quit your blabbing and stick to the wager. You're trying to buy time because otherwise you would be gone by now. Why dont you till the fertile field of LaRouche slanders instead of trying to give me a history lesson? You hinted you were going back to the 1970's, for some vintage LaRouche racism. But so far nothing. The man is 86 years old and a racist, so it shouldnt be difficult for you to locate a few of his more choice comments. Bye, bye. The delay as I pointed out was due to me hoping you’d accept the wager but you so far have refused. Here are the quotes, but you were not paying attention I already posted them a few weeks ago on another thread. "Zombie Killers Out of Control" (June 1974). "This summer you will be walking down the street with your family and a cruising car will pull up beside you. A group of young black men will jump out of the car and surround you. As they close in, you may notice that their eyes show no emotion, their pupils are pinpoints. Your throat will be slashed, your wife will be stabbed, your children's heads will be smashed against the pavement. The attackers will be grinning or laughing." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-zombie-killers.pdf "The Politics of Male Impotence" (1973) "What is the sickness inside so many of our members whcih [sic] causes them to awfully admire the image of the Black Ghetto mother? Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the Black Chetto [sic] mother?" Note his use of "anything" rather than "anyone." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-racism-mothers.pdf “The Case of Walter Lippmann” (1977) LaRouche says it was "absolutely" correct for the "American branch of European humanist culture" to grab all the land from the "miserable, relatively bestial culture of indigenous Americans." (Note that he lumps hundreds of tribes, language groups and ancient peoples into a single undifferentiated culture.) And the same thing goes for those miserable Mexicans after the War of 1848: "We do not regard all cultures and nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or survival." And we have something more recent: Saturday Dialogue with LaRouche, Pt. 1 (April 12, 2008) "…and she [Obama’s mother] wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-obama.htm - All the above adapted from: http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-obama-menu.htm LaRouche attacks Judaism as the religion of the "Roman merchant-usurer who had not yet evolved to the state of Papal Enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not yet developed a Christian conscience" and Jewish culture as "merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim" (The Campaigner, December 1973). http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/images/ludwig3.jpg So please send me the $ 1000 at your soonest possible convenience. Once you've chosen which items to purchase and which shipping method you what me to use I'll bill you separately for postage. My PM box is full but you can send me an e-mail through the forum. Edited October 9, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 Where are the LaRouche slanders that you promised? Quit your blabbing and stick to the wager. You're trying to buy time because otherwise you would be gone by now. Why dont you till the fertile field of LaRouche slanders instead of trying to give me a history lesson? You hinted you were going back to the 1970's, for some vintage LaRouche racism. But so far nothing. The man is 86 years old and a racist, so it shouldnt be difficult for you to locate a few of his more choice comments. Bye, bye. The delay as I pointed out was due to me hoping you’d accept the wager but you so far have refused. Here are the quotes, but you were not paying attention I already posted them a few weeks ago on another thread. "Zombie Killers Out of Control" (June 1974). "This summer you will be walking down the street with your family and a cruising car will pull up beside you. A group of young black men will jump out of the car and surround you. As they close in, you may notice that their eyes show no emotion, their pupils are pinpoints. Your throat will be slashed, your wife will be stabbed, your children's heads will be smashed against the pavement. The attackers will be grinning or laughing." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-zombie-killers.pdf "The Politics of Male Impotence" (1973) "What is the sickness inside so many of our members whcih [sic] causes them to awfully admire the image of the Black Ghetto mother? Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the Black Chetto [sic] mother?" Note his use of "anything" rather than "anyone." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-racism-mothers.pdf “The Case of Walter Lippmann” (1977) LaRouche says it was "absolutely" correct for the "American branch of European humanist culture" to grab all the land from the "miserable, relatively bestial culture of indigenous Americans." (Note that he lumps hundreds of tribes, language groups and ancient peoples into a single undifferentiated culture.) And the same thing goes for those miserable Mexicans after the War of 1848: "We do not regard all cultures and nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or survival." And we have something more recent: Saturday Dialogue with LaRouche, Pt. 1 (April 12, 2008) "…and she [Obama’s mother] wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-obama.htm - All the above adapted from: http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-obama-menu.htm LaRouche attacks Judaism as the religion of the "Roman merchant-usurer who had not yet evolved to the state of Papal Enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not yet developed a Christian conscience" and Jewish culture as "merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim" (The Campaigner, December 1973). http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/images/ludwig3.jpg So please send me the $ 1000 at your soonest possible convenience. Once you've chosen which items to purchase and which shipping method you what me to use I'll bill you separately for postage. My PM box is full but you can send me an e-mail through the forum. Hmmm....it seems like I've seen these before, somewhere. I'll answer you when I get more time. Typical "format" slander. You really didnt do much work, allowing others to package your BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 For some one venturing an opinion on the subject you should know what mercantilist means, this is not some obscure concept but rather something you were supposed to have learned a few times in junior high school and high school history. FWIW, I have never heard of the term either. I don't claim to have a strong grasp of history, either. Is it something related specifically to US history? Evan, I had no interest in debating the meaning of the word Mercantilism. My interest lies in examining the polar opposite systems of the British Empire versus the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Where are the LaRouche slanders that you promised? Quit your blabbing and stick to the wager. You're trying to buy time because otherwise you would be gone by now. Why dont you till the fertile field of LaRouche slanders instead of trying to give me a history lesson? You hinted you were going back to the 1970's, for some vintage LaRouche racism. But so far nothing. The man is 86 years old and a racist, so it shouldnt be difficult for you to locate a few of his more choice comments. Bye, bye. The delay as I pointed out was due to me hoping you’d accept the wager but you so far have refused. Here are the quotes, but you were not paying attention I already posted them a few weeks ago on another thread. "Zombie Killers Out of Control" (June 1974). "This summer you will be walking down the street with your family and a cruising car will pull up beside you. A group of young black men will jump out of the car and surround you. As they close in, you may notice that their eyes show no emotion, their pupils are pinpoints. Your throat will be slashed, your wife will be stabbed, your children's heads will be smashed against the pavement. The attackers will be grinning or laughing." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-zombie-killers.pdf "The Politics of Male Impotence" (1973) "What is the sickness inside so many of our members whcih [sic] causes them to awfully admire the image of the Black Ghetto mother? Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the Black Chetto [sic] mother?" Note his use of "anything" rather than "anyone." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-racism-mothers.pdf “The Case of Walter Lippmann” (1977) LaRouche says it was "absolutely" correct for the "American branch of European humanist culture" to grab all the land from the "miserable, relatively bestial culture of indigenous Americans." (Note that he lumps hundreds of tribes, language groups and ancient peoples into a single undifferentiated culture.) And the same thing goes for those miserable Mexicans after the War of 1848: "We do not regard all cultures and nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or survival." And we have something more recent: Saturday Dialogue with LaRouche, Pt. 1 (April 12, 2008) "…and she [Obama’s mother] wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him." http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-obama.htm - All the above adapted from: http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-obama-menu.htm LaRouche attacks Judaism as the religion of the "Roman merchant-usurer who had not yet evolved to the state of Papal Enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not yet developed a Christian conscience" and Jewish culture as "merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim" (The Campaigner, December 1973). http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/images/ludwig3.jpg So please send me the $ 1000 at your soonest possible convenience. Once you've chosen which items to purchase and which shipping method you what me to use I'll bill you separately for postage. My PM box is full but you can send me an e-mail through the forum. Hmmm....it seems like I've seen these before, somewhere. I'll answer you when I get more time. Typical "format" slander. You really didnt do much work, allowing others to package your BS. racism poking its head out of the closet once again -- sigh. The American Civil WAR still raging in the minds of some. Same striking fear into the minds of common folk -- so, the racists are climbing and stoking the FEAR ladder once again. After all, the hearts and minds of those common American folk is at stake, eh? Let's wow them with Wall Street financial mumbo-jumbo.... what nonsense! Your bet doesn't look good, Terry. Edited October 9, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tribe Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 "I had no interest in debating the meaning of the word Mercantilism. My interest lies in examining the polar opposite systems of the British Empire versus the United States." Unfortunately, since you apparently understand NEITHER the basis of the British Empire system -- mercantilism -- NOR the basis of the United States system -- tariff protection -- your views would seem to have no validity whatsoever. You remain a banana, although I'be beginning to wonder whether I'm doing an injustice to bananas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 "I had no interest in debating the meaning of the word Mercantilism. My interest lies in examining the polar opposite systems of the British Empire versus the United States."Unfortunately, since you apparently understand NEITHER the basis of the British Empire system -- mercantilism -- NOR the basis of the United States system -- tariff protection -- your views would seem to have no validity whatsoever. You remain a banana, although I'be beginning to wonder whether I'm doing an injustice to bananas... At least were making progress. At least weve established that the British Empire and United States adopted two polar opposite and irreconcilable systems. Free Trade versus the American System. And I do understand the basis of the British Empire system. All you have to do is look back in history to see what they did to India, Africa, USA, and the rest of their colonial empire. Genocidal looting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now