Hitler begs Hjalmar Schact for a $7 billion loan

[Len Colby]

Amelia was the person responsible for bringing that nasty communist MLK into Selma Alabama during the 1950s.

If anyone else said that I would assume they were being ironic but in your case I assume meant it. You really are a nutball and are demonstrating your gross ignorance once again.

She had been involved in civil rights before King was born. If there is a living expert on racism it would be Amelia Robinson, and yet she swears by Lyndon LaRouche.

The mother of the civil rights movement chose Lyndon LaRouche and his organization out of all other organizations that she could have worked with, and here you are telling her that she is supporting a racist. You still wear diapers?

You are exaggerating her importance, Google her name and virtually all hits are to LaRouche sites. You calling her the “mother of the civil rights movement” once again demonstrates your ignorance. Try Googling the following “Frederick Douglas”, “W.E.B. DuBois”, “Ida Wells”, “George Washington Carver”, “Civil Rights Cases” 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson. The civil rights movement started before the Civil War. Not even the LaRouche shills claim she was that important. You still convinced she was, go to a good library find a good book about the history of the movement and find one that ID’s her as one of the key players There were lots of African American’s involved in the Civil Rights Movement that a handful of mid-low level ones got involved with your messiah proves nothing, a lot more presumably have heard of him but want nothing to do with him. In any case she only met him a decade after all but one of the quotes. Odd that you have yet to address the others, unless you can do so in a meaningful way you owe me $ 1000.

But help yourself and call Theo Mitchell. He might even tip you off to the methods used against AA elected officials in an effort to get them to break with LaRouche -see Erik Fleming--

You should find his email (or use the email from the Shiller Institute) and send him your "Zombie" article from 1974. Surely a lawyer and a black lawyer at that would spot the blatant racism. What do you have to lose. You can even post Theo's email response. Tell Theo that you're the great investigator from Brazil.

As I said as a member of the cult I doubt he could be objective. You think his candidacy for governor in 1990 proves something? Riddle me this did he join up with LaRouche before or after he ran?

But I dont know why you continuie to push this BS after you've been shown the facts.

All you’ve “shown” is your spin regarding one of the 5 quotes.

All you did was paste the same old slander from Dennis King (and you did not credit Dennis as your source),

Let’s see I provided links to his site and wrote “- All the above adapted from:” You’re right I plagiarized him.

And instead of continuing to list all these AA elected officials working with LaRouche, why dont you just tell me the magic number required to satisfy your doubts? Is it 20, 40 ?

I imagine the number is exceedingly small, probably less than 1% of the total and limited to lower level officials, can you name any congressmen, mayors or statewide officials? People who held these posts decades before backing LaDouche don’t count especially if they were in there 70’s or 80’s.

As I pointed out this is irrelevant. Garnering African American support 1983 – present in no way contracts the notion of him making racist comments in the early – mid 70’s. Two years before Robinson joined LaRouche’s legions an infamous racist managed to garner significant support from African-Americans.

SCLC HEARS OLD FOE: GEORGE WALLACE

By Julia Cass Inquirer Staff Writer BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Things have changed here since the days the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) began marching for integration 25 years ago. And anyone doubting that change got an effective reminder yesterday. George Wallace, the man who vowed "segregation now, segregation forever" back in the 1960s, came to the 25th annual convention of the SCLC to say that he had

Published on August 12, 1982, Page A03, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archiv...ackval=GooglePM

In 1982, black voters helped reelect [George] Wallace, giving him one-third of their votes in the first primary. He then increased this constituency to beat Lieutenant Governor George McMillan by one percentage point in the Democratic runoff. In the general election, Wallace carried 90 percent of the state's black electorate, linking it with rural white voters and members of the Alabama Education Association to form a coalition that defeated Republican Emory Folmar, mayor of Montgomery.

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/...e.jsp?id=h-1676

In 1982, he [Wallace] ran for governor a fourth time. In a watershed moment, he admitted that he had been wrong about "race" all along. He was elected by a coalition represented by blacks, organized labor and forces seeking to advance public education. In that race, he carried all 10 of the state's counties with a majority black population, nine of them by a better than two-to-one margin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...t98/wallace.htm .- 1998

The chief mystery of the campaign, at least to those with memories that run back 20 years, is that many black Alabamians are voting for Wallace, and even working in his cause.

[…]

It is spiritually disorienting to see a black driving a car with Alabama plates and a Wallace bumper sticker. It is surreal to walk into Wallace's state campaign headquarters, a neobellum low-rise former furniture store on the edge of Montgomery. There, amid the deep shag carpeting and the clickity-click of computer printers churning out voter lists, sits Mrs. Ollie Carter, a black Wallace worker. All day she phones around the state with a gentle, churchgoing courtesy, asking blacks for their support, reminding them to vote.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,922988,00.html [Oct 1982 pgs 1 & 2]

[Terry Mauro]

Amelia was the person responsible for bringing that nasty communist MLK into Selma Alabama during the 1950s.

If anyone else said that I would assume they were being ironic but in your case I assume meant it. You really are a nutball and are demonstrating your gross ignorance once again.

She had been involved in civil rights before King was born. If there is a living expert on racism it would be Amelia Robinson, and yet she swears by Lyndon LaRouche.

The mother of the civil rights movement chose Lyndon LaRouche and his organization out of all other organizations that she could have worked with, and here you are telling her that she is supporting a racist. You still wear diapers?

You are exaggerating her importance, Google her name and virtually all hits are to LaRouche sites. You calling her the “mother of the civil rights movement” once again demonstrates your ignorance. Try Googling the following “Frederick Douglas”, “W.E.B. DuBois”, “Ida Wells”, “George Washington Carver”, “Civil Rights Cases” 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson. The civil rights movement started before the Civil War. Not even the LaRouche shills claim she was that important. You still convinced she was, go to a good library find a good book about the history of the movement and find one that ID’s her as one of the key players There were lots of African American’s involved in the Civil Rights Movement that a handful of mid-low level ones got involved with your messiah proves nothing, a lot more presumably have heard of him but want nothing to do with him. In any case she only met him a decade after all but one of the quotes. Odd that you have yet to address the others, unless you can do so in a meaningful way you owe me $ 1000.

But help yourself and call Theo Mitchell. He might even tip you off to the methods used against AA elected officials in an effort to get them to break with LaRouche -see Erik Fleming--

You should find his email (or use the email from the Shiller Institute) and send him your "Zombie" article from 1974. Surely a lawyer and a black lawyer at that would spot the blatant racism. What do you have to lose. You can even post Theo's email response. Tell Theo that you're the great investigator from Brazil.

As I said as a member of the cult I doubt he could be objective. You think his candidacy for governor in 1990 proves something? Riddle me this did he join up with LaRouche before or after he ran?

But I dont know why you continuie to push this BS after you've been shown the facts.

All you’ve “shown” is your spin regarding one of the 5 quotes.

All you did was paste the same old slander from Dennis King (and you did not credit Dennis as your source),

Let’s see I provided links to his site and wrote “- All the above adapted from:” You’re right I plagiarized him.

And instead of continuing to list all these AA elected officials working with LaRouche, why dont you just tell me the magic number required to satisfy your doubts? Is it 20, 40 ?

I imagine the number is exceedingly small, probably less than 1% of the total and limited to lower level officials, can you name any congressmen, mayors or statewide officials? People who held these posts decades before backing LaDouche don’t count especially if they were in there 70’s or 80’s.

As I pointed out this is irrelevant. Garnering African American support 1983 – present in no way contracts the notion of him making racist comments in the early – mid 70’s. Two years before Robinson joined LaRouche’s legions an infamous racist managed to garner significant support from African-Americans.

SCLC HEARS OLD FOE: GEORGE WALLACE

By Julia Cass Inquirer Staff Writer BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Things have changed here since the days the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) began marching for integration 25 years ago. And anyone doubting that change got an effective reminder yesterday. George Wallace, the man who vowed "segregation now, segregation forever" back in the 1960s, came to the 25th annual convention of the SCLC to say that he had

Published on August 12, 1982, Page A03, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archiv...ackval=GooglePM

In 1982, black voters helped reelect [George] Wallace, giving him one-third of their votes in the first primary. He then increased this constituency to beat Lieutenant Governor George McMillan by one percentage point in the Democratic runoff. In the general election, Wallace carried 90 percent of the state's black electorate, linking it with rural white voters and members of the Alabama Education Association to form a coalition that defeated Republican Emory Folmar, mayor of Montgomery.

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/...e.jsp?id=h-1676

In 1982, he [Wallace] ran for governor a fourth time. In a watershed moment, he admitted that he had been wrong about "race" all along. He was elected by a coalition represented by blacks, organized labor and forces seeking to advance public education. In that race, he carried all 10 of the state's counties with a majority black population, nine of them by a better than two-to-one margin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...t98/wallace.htm .- 1998

The chief mystery of the campaign, at least to those with memories that run back 20 years, is that many black Alabamians are voting for Wallace, and even working in his cause.

[…]

It is spiritually disorienting to see a black driving a car with Alabama plates and a Wallace bumper sticker. It is surreal to walk into Wallace's state campaign headquarters, a neobellum low-rise former furniture store on the edge of Montgomery. There, amid the deep shag carpeting and the clickity-click of computer printers churning out voter lists, sits Mrs. Ollie Carter, a black Wallace worker. All day she phones around the state with a gentle, churchgoing courtesy, asking blacks for their support, reminding them to vote.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,922988,00.html [Oct 1982 pgs 1 & 2]

I'm exaggerating her importance? My god you're a dribbler.

Shouldnt you be gone? You gonna welch on your wager, is that correct?

And please dont torture me with these long meaningless messages you construct. It is painful to dig through all of your meaningless trash. I dont care that you can access a quote from 1982. The issue that LaRouche is racist has been answered.

That you dont understand Amelia Robinson's importance to the civil rights movement is not my fault. The fault is yours. As I stated yesterday you are a "punk". That's your nature.

But people who worked closely with MLK, and who risked their very lives, would not join up with a racist. And LaRouche is surrounded by former members of the MLK civil rights movement. I've already shown that.

You lost your bet so now live up to your end of the bargain.

PS- Hey dumb dumb, GW would have to address african americans in 1982, as they had won the right to vote in 1964, thanks to the likes of Amelia Robinson.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Evan Burton]

Terry,

A moderator has had to twice edit your posts because of use of a banned word. Additionally, your posts are becoming increasing insulting.

Please keep a more civil tone in your posts; you can strongly reject what another poster is saying - and even be heavy on a sarcastic tone - without being insulting. You are clearly an intelligent person and don't need this explained to you any further.

Additionally, final warning about use of a banned word. If you feel you need to make a specific statement, and that statement might contravene Forum rules, then clear it with a moderator first... before posting.

There is an old adage: "Tis easier to seek forgiveness than ask permission". On this Forum, it is not the case.

Thank you.

[Len Colby]

Amelia was the person responsible for bringing that nasty communist MLK into Selma Alabama during the 1950s.

If anyone else said that I would assume they were being ironic but in your case I assume meant it. You really are a nutball and are demonstrating your gross ignorance once again.

She had been involved in civil rights before King was born. If there is a living expert on racism it would be Amelia Robinson, and yet she swears by Lyndon LaRouche.

The mother of the civil rights movement chose Lyndon LaRouche and his organization out of all other organizations that she could have worked with, and here you are telling her that she is supporting a racist. You still wear diapers?

You are exaggerating her importance, Google her name and virtually all hits are to LaRouche sites. You calling her the “mother of the civil rights movement” once again demonstrates your ignorance. Try Googling the following “Frederick Douglas”, “W.E.B. DuBois”, “Ida Wells”, “George Washington Carver”, “Civil Rights Cases” 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson. The civil rights movement started before the Civil War. Not even the LaRouche shills claim she was that important. You still convinced she was, go to a good library find a good book about the history of the movement and find one that ID’s her as one of the key players There were lots of African American’s involved in the Civil Rights Movement that a handful of mid-low level ones got involved with your messiah proves nothing, a lot more presumably have heard of him but want nothing to do with him. In any case she only met him a decade after all but one of the quotes. Odd that you have yet to address the others, unless you can do so in a meaningful way you owe me $ 1000.

But help yourself and call Theo Mitchell. He might even tip you off to the methods used against AA elected officials in an effort to get them to break with LaRouche -see Erik Fleming--

You should find his email (or use the email from the Shiller Institute) and send him your "Zombie" article from 1974. Surely a lawyer and a black lawyer at that would spot the blatant racism. What do you have to lose. You can even post Theo's email response. Tell Theo that you're the great investigator from Brazil.

As I said as a member of the cult I doubt he could be objective. You think his candidacy for governor in 1990 proves something? Riddle me this did he join up with LaRouche before or after he ran?

But I dont know why you continuie to push this BS after you've been shown the facts.

All you’ve “shown” is your spin regarding one of the 5 quotes.

All you did was paste the same old slander from Dennis King (and you did not credit Dennis as your source),

Let’s see I provided links to his site and wrote “- All the above adapted from:” You’re right I plagiarized him.

And instead of continuing to list all these AA elected officials working with LaRouche, why dont you just tell me the magic number required to satisfy your doubts? Is it 20, 40 ?

I imagine the number is exceedingly small, probably less than 1% of the total and limited to lower level officials, can you name any congressmen, mayors or statewide officials? People who held these posts decades before backing LaDouche don’t count especially if they were in there 70’s or 80’s.

As I pointed out this is irrelevant. Garnering African American support 1983 – present in no way contracts the notion of him making racist comments in the early – mid 70’s. Two years before Robinson joined LaRouche’s legions an infamous racist managed to garner significant support from African-Americans.

SCLC HEARS OLD FOE: GEORGE WALLACE

By Julia Cass Inquirer Staff Writer BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Things have changed here since the days the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) began marching for integration 25 years ago. And anyone doubting that change got an effective reminder yesterday. George Wallace, the man who vowed "segregation now, segregation forever" back in the 1960s, came to the 25th annual convention of the SCLC to say that he had

Published on August 12, 1982, Page A03, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archiv...ackval=GooglePM

In 1982, black voters helped reelect [George] Wallace, giving him one-third of their votes in the first primary. He then increased this constituency to beat Lieutenant Governor George McMillan by one percentage point in the Democratic runoff. In the general election, Wallace carried 90 percent of the state's black electorate, linking it with rural white voters and members of the Alabama Education Association to form a coalition that defeated Republican Emory Folmar, mayor of Montgomery.

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/...e.jsp?id=h-1676

In 1982, he [Wallace] ran for governor a fourth time. In a watershed moment, he admitted that he had been wrong about "race" all along. He was elected by a coalition represented by blacks, organized labor and forces seeking to advance public education. In that race, he carried all 10 of the state's counties with a majority black population, nine of them by a better than two-to-one margin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...t98/wallace.htm .- 1998

The chief mystery of the campaign, at least to those with memories that run back 20 years, is that many black Alabamians are voting for Wallace, and even working in his cause.

[…]

It is spiritually disorienting to see a black driving a car with Alabama plates and a Wallace bumper sticker. It is surreal to walk into Wallace's state campaign headquarters, a neobellum low-rise former furniture store on the edge of Montgomery. There, amid the deep shag carpeting and the clickity-click of computer printers churning out voter lists, sits Mrs. Ollie Carter, a black Wallace worker. All day she phones around the state with a gentle, churchgoing courtesy, asking blacks for their support, reminding them to vote.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,922988,00.html [Oct 1982 pgs 1 & 2]

I'm exaggerating her importance? My god you're a dribbler.

Shouldnt you be gone? You gonna welch on your wager, is that correct?

And please dont torture me with these long meaningless messages you construct. It is painful to dig through all of your meaningless trash. I dont care that you can access a quote from 1982. The issue that LaRouche is racist has been answered.

That you dont understand Amelia Robinson's importance to the civil rights movement is not my fault. The fault is yours. As I stated yesterday you are a "punk". That's your nature.

But people who worked closely with MLK, and who risked their very lives, would not join up with a racist. And LaRouche is surrounded by former members of the MLK civil rights movement. I've already shown that.

You lost your bet so now live up to your end of the bargain.

PS- Hey dumb dumb, GW would have to address african americans in 1982, as they had won the right to vote in 1964, thanks to the likes of Amelia Robinson.

Since you failed to address four of the five quotes you lost the debate and owe me $ 1000 not that I ever really expect you to pay up.

As a sign of your inability to rationalize them you changed the subject to LaRouche’s support from African-Americans 1980 – present as if this some how disproves that the comments he made in the 70’s were racist. That is non-sense I doubt they were aware of these comments went they got involved with him and the case of George Wallace shows that people who have previously be far infamously and blatantly racist than LaRouche was can garner significant African-American support if they change their tune. The man who proclaimed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" spoke to the SCLC and got 35% and 90% of the black vote for governor in the 1st round Democratic primary and general election respectively in 1982. So tell us has LaRouche ever addressed the SCLC or any important African-American organization other than the Nation of Islam (Farrakhan)? Has he ever gotten 35% of the black vote in any electoral contest?

Not only is his support from blacks years after the quotes in question irrelevant it is weak because you have failed to show it rises or ever rose above a small number of mid-level people, can you point to more that two who joined one of LaRouche’s groups rather than just briefly supporting him?

I predict you will continue to focus on his support from a handful of African Americans since the 1980's, which is irrelevant, rather than the issue at hand his comments in the 1970's and the one from this year.

[Terry Mauro]

Amelia was the person responsible for bringing that nasty communist MLK into Selma Alabama during the 1950s.

If anyone else said that I would assume they were being ironic but in your case I assume meant it. You really are a nutball and are demonstrating your gross ignorance once again.

She had been involved in civil rights before King was born. If there is a living expert on racism it would be Amelia Robinson, and yet she swears by Lyndon LaRouche.

The mother of the civil rights movement chose Lyndon LaRouche and his organization out of all other organizations that she could have worked with, and here you are telling her that she is supporting a racist. You still wear diapers?

You are exaggerating her importance, Google her name and virtually all hits are to LaRouche sites. You calling her the “mother of the civil rights movement” once again demonstrates your ignorance. Try Googling the following “Frederick Douglas”, “W.E.B. DuBois”, “Ida Wells”, “George Washington Carver”, “Civil Rights Cases” 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson. The civil rights movement started before the Civil War. Not even the LaRouche shills claim she was that important. You still convinced she was, go to a good library find a good book about the history of the movement and find one that ID’s her as one of the key players There were lots of African American’s involved in the Civil Rights Movement that a handful of mid-low level ones got involved with your messiah proves nothing, a lot more presumably have heard of him but want nothing to do with him. In any case she only met him a decade after all but one of the quotes. Odd that you have yet to address the others, unless you can do so in a meaningful way you owe me $ 1000.

But help yourself and call Theo Mitchell. He might even tip you off to the methods used against AA elected officials in an effort to get them to break with LaRouche -see Erik Fleming--

You should find his email (or use the email from the Shiller Institute) and send him your "Zombie" article from 1974. Surely a lawyer and a black lawyer at that would spot the blatant racism. What do you have to lose. You can even post Theo's email response. Tell Theo that you're the great investigator from Brazil.

As I said as a member of the cult I doubt he could be objective. You think his candidacy for governor in 1990 proves something? Riddle me this did he join up with LaRouche before or after he ran?

But I dont know why you continuie to push this BS after you've been shown the facts.

All you’ve “shown” is your spin regarding one of the 5 quotes.

All you did was paste the same old slander from Dennis King (and you did not credit Dennis as your source),

Let’s see I provided links to his site and wrote “- All the above adapted from:” You’re right I plagiarized him.

And instead of continuing to list all these AA elected officials working with LaRouche, why dont you just tell me the magic number required to satisfy your doubts? Is it 20, 40 ?

I imagine the number is exceedingly small, probably less than 1% of the total and limited to lower level officials, can you name any congressmen, mayors or statewide officials? People who held these posts decades before backing LaDouche don’t count especially if they were in there 70’s or 80’s.

As I pointed out this is irrelevant. Garnering African American support 1983 – present in no way contracts the notion of him making racist comments in the early – mid 70’s. Two years before Robinson joined LaRouche’s legions an infamous racist managed to garner significant support from African-Americans.

SCLC HEARS OLD FOE: GEORGE WALLACE

By Julia Cass Inquirer Staff Writer BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Things have changed here since the days the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) began marching for integration 25 years ago. And anyone doubting that change got an effective reminder yesterday. George Wallace, the man who vowed "segregation now, segregation forever" back in the 1960s, came to the 25th annual convention of the SCLC to say that he had

Published on August 12, 1982, Page A03, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archiv...ackval=GooglePM

In 1982, black voters helped reelect [George] Wallace, giving him one-third of their votes in the first primary. He then increased this constituency to beat Lieutenant Governor George McMillan by one percentage point in the Democratic runoff. In the general election, Wallace carried 90 percent of the state's black electorate, linking it with rural white voters and members of the Alabama Education Association to form a coalition that defeated Republican Emory Folmar, mayor of Montgomery.

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/...e.jsp?id=h-1676

In 1982, he [Wallace] ran for governor a fourth time. In a watershed moment, he admitted that he had been wrong about "race" all along. He was elected by a coalition represented by blacks, organized labor and forces seeking to advance public education. In that race, he carried all 10 of the state's counties with a majority black population, nine of them by a better than two-to-one margin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...t98/wallace.htm .- 1998

The chief mystery of the campaign, at least to those with memories that run back 20 years, is that many black Alabamians are voting for Wallace, and even working in his cause.

[…]

It is spiritually disorienting to see a black driving a car with Alabama plates and a Wallace bumper sticker. It is surreal to walk into Wallace's state campaign headquarters, a neobellum low-rise former furniture store on the edge of Montgomery. There, amid the deep shag carpeting and the clickity-click of computer printers churning out voter lists, sits Mrs. Ollie Carter, a black Wallace worker. All day she phones around the state with a gentle, churchgoing courtesy, asking blacks for their support, reminding them to vote.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,922988,00.html [Oct 1982 pgs 1 & 2]

I'm exaggerating her importance? My god you're a dribbler.

Shouldnt you be gone? You gonna welch on your wager, is that correct?

And please dont torture me with these long meaningless messages you construct. It is painful to dig through all of your meaningless trash. I dont care that you can access a quote from 1982. The issue that LaRouche is racist has been answered.

That you dont understand Amelia Robinson's importance to the civil rights movement is not my fault. The fault is yours. As I stated yesterday you are a "punk". That's your nature.

But people who worked closely with MLK, and who risked their very lives, would not join up with a racist. And LaRouche is surrounded by former members of the MLK civil rights movement. I've already shown that.

You lost your bet so now live up to your end of the bargain.

PS- Hey dumb dumb, GW would have to address african americans in 1982, as they had won the right to vote in 1964, thanks to the likes of Amelia Robinson.

Since you failed to address four of the five quotes you lost the debate and owe me $ 1000 not that I ever really expect you to pay up.

As a sign of your inability to rationalize them you changed the subject to LaRouche’s support from African-Americans 1980 – present as if this some how disproves that the comments he made in the 70’s were racist. That is non-sense I doubt they were aware of these comments went they got involved with him and the case of George Wallace shows that people who have previously be far infamously and blatantly racist than LaRouche was can garner significant African-American support if they change their tune. The man who proclaimed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" spoke to the SCLC and got 35% and 90% of the black vote for governor in the 1st round Democratic primary and general election respectively in 1982. So tell us has LaRouche ever addressed the SCLC or any important African-American organization other than the Nation of Islam (Farrakhan)? Has he ever gotten 35% of the black vote in any electoral contest?

Not only is his support from blacks years after the quotes in question irrelevant it is weak because you have failed to show it rises or ever rose above a small number of mid-level people, can you point to more that two who joined one of LaRouche’s groups rather than just briefly supporting him?

I predict you will continue to focus on his support from a handful of African Americans since the 1980's, which is irrelevant, rather than the issue at hand his comments in the 1970's and the one from this year.

The bet didnt center around how many "quotes" I addressed. The bet was whether Lyndon LaRouche was a racist. You claimed you could provide evidence. All you provided was some warn out slanders from a paid poison pen named Dennis King. Every idiot on the internet "uses" Dennis King when they want to prove their intimate knowlege on LaRouche. It's nothing new. I provided you with names of former MLK associates who work with Lyndon LaRouche. Just as they worked with Martin Luther King.

As far as George Wallace being rejected by 65% of the African American vote in Alabama?

George Wallace changed his tune as a result of those African Americans like Amelia Robinson who fought to make changes in the south. If Wallace wanted to get elected in 1982 then he had to appeal to African Americans. He did not have to concern himself with the black vote during the early 1960's. So the very people who embrace Lyndon LaRouche were also the people who changed history (try googling that you nitwit) working with Dr. King.

If you are so sure these former associates of MLK now working with LaRouche did so blindly then why dont you send Theo Mitchell and email and ask him? You wont do this because you're a coward.

What you want to try and do now, is keep the debate centered around whether a 1970's article can be argued to be racist. It is almost as crazy as your argument that John Kennedy simply wanted to fund a ride to the moon and return.

And what's the point of asking whether LL ever addressed the SCLC? You just go on and on with this nonsense. What has that got to do with whether or not LaRouche is a racist?

I've posted this link before but I guess you missed it http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2004/3104mlk_talladega.html

You have lost this debate. You stated that LaRouche is a racist and low and behold you come to find out that former associates of Martin Luther King are also associates of Lyndon LaRouche. You wont even contact any of these former MLK associates prefering instead to "speculate" what they "knew" or didnt know regarding Mr. LaRouche's racist outlook.

Weak, real weak.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi,

I have refrained from posting an outright 'comment' here for several days, but decided what the hell.

Terry, if 4 out of the 5 examples Len cited are true and accurate quotes from or directly linked to LaRouche and these citations are indeed 'racist' then his claim is still valid. It really doesn’t matter how many examples you list of instances/examples where he appears not to be racist now - if a murderer kills one person but doesn’t kill another - what does it make him?

So please, either refute Len's claims one by one like I asked you a while ago, or give it up and agree to disagree.

Thanks - Steve

Edited October 16, 2008 by Steve Mcdonagh

[Terry Mauro]

Hi,

I have refrained from posting an outright 'comment' here for several days, but decided what the hell.

Terry, if 4 out of the 5 examples Len cited are true and accurate quotes from or directly linked to LaRouche and these citations are indeed 'racist' then his claim is still valid. It really doesn’t matter how many examples you list of instances/examples where he appears not to be racist now - if a murderer kills one person but doesn’t kill another - what does it make him?

So please, either refute Len's claims one by one like I asked you a while ago, or give it up and agree to disagree.

Thanks - Steve

What makes the comments true? Please explain why they are true? Isnt that the real question?

Dennis King is a long time asset deployed to slander LaRouche. But I'm sure Len is grateful for your "unbiased" opinion. Maybe you can take your interest and email Theo Mitchell. He works with LaRouche and can tell you whether LaRouche is a racist.

Again why are his comments true? What makes Kings allegations true? Try answering that question. For some reason youre confusing Len Colby's "pasting" of Dennis King slanders as some kind of revelation by Len. Len Colby is simply pasting the slanders of a long time LaRouche hater. A guy who gets paid to make such accusations. I am curious to find out why you think these comments are true? And why you think Colby has proven his charge of racism?

Here is just a taste of Dennis King's obsession with LaRouche.

http://www.lyndonlarouche.org/ostrom.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Lyndon-Larouche-New-...m/dp/0385238800

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/adelson.htm

http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.com/biglie.htm

It is certainly shocking that a gentile from a fine North Carolina family should be the voice crying out the warning for American Jews. But Dennis King deserves that gratitude of American Jewry for stepping into the breach.

I wonder if Dennis King likes the expression "Rubbish"?

Edited October 16, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Mike Tribe]

I really it's you who has the obsession with LaRouche, whoever he is. It seems you're incapable of writing about anything without turning it into a paean of praise for him. Your sole source of "evidence" for your wild claims come from him or from other LaRouche disciples. This thread is a good example. "Hitler begs Hjalmar Schact [sic] for a $7 billion loan" purports to draw a parallel between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hitler's Minister of Economics. You provided no evidence for your claim that the Governor of California was "a nazi" except to suggest that he must be because he had been supported by a Kennedy and so had Hitler! Since then, all you've done is drone on and on about LaRouche and insult anyone with whom you differ or who suggests that you and your mentor might not be correct.

The reason I called you a banana was to suggest that this claim was supported by exactly the same amount of evidence as your claim that Gov. Schwarzenegger was a nazi -- none whatsoever.

I do feel that your continual carping on about LaRouche does this forum a disservice and wish you would stop, or that some moderator or other would draw a line under the "discussion".

[Terry Mauro]

I really it's you who has the obsession with LaRouche, whoever he is. It seems you're incapable of writing about anything without turning it into a paean of praise for him. Your sole source of "evidence" for your wild claims come from him or from other LaRouche disciples. This thread is a good example. "Hitler begs Hjalmar Schact [sic] for a $7 billion loan" purports to draw a parallel between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hitler's Minister of Economics. You provided no evidence for your claim that the Governor of California was "a nazi" except to suggest that he must be because he had been supported by a Kennedy and so had Hitler! Since then, all you've done is drone on and on about LaRouche and insult anyone with whom you differ or who suggests that you and your mentor might not be correct.

The reason I called you a banana was to suggest that this claim was supported by exactly the same amount of evidence as your claim that Gov. Schwarzenegger was a nazi -- none whatsoever.

I do feel that your continual carping on about LaRouche does this forum a disservice and wish you would stop, or that some moderator or other would draw a line under the "discussion".

I am still not persuaded you know anything.

[Mike Tribe]

But I'm not claiming arcane knowledge. You are. I'm not suggesting the Governor of California is a nazi. You are. I'm not claiming that the assassination of Pres Kennedy was the result of a "British plot" to undermine the United States of America. You are. And you are unable to present any credible evidence for any of these rather strange claims. All you do is indulge in esoteric arguments about who was a paedophile, where and when... or how many African Americans worked for who, when and where, or whether Martin Luther King was a Marxist...

[Terry Mauro]

But I'm not claiming arcane knowledge. You are. I'm not suggesting the Governor of California is a nazi. You are. I'm not claiming that the assassination of Pres Kennedy was the result of a "British plot" to undermine the United States of America. You are. And you are unable to present any credible evidence for any of these rather strange claims. All you do is indulge in esoteric arguments about who was a paedophile, where and when... or how many African Americans worked for who, when and where, or whether Martin Luther King was a Marxist...

Kennedy was murdered on British orders. Major Louis Mortimer's Permindex carried out the murder, and they had also made numerous attempts against the life of French President Charles de Gaulle.

You ask for evidence but anything I might provide would not fit the bill. It has to do with the axioms you hold. Like going on about Mercantilism instead of looking at the fundamental conflict between the British Empire and the newly formed republic the United States. Why didnt the founding fathers simply create a new Empire, why did they risk their lives to create a republic? Why a republic, where did this come from?

[Mike Tribe]

If you stop making silly errors of historical fact -- like claiming that the American Revolution was caused by British free trade policies -- and totally unsupported claims (Schwartzenegger is a nazi, Bertrand Russell was a murdering warmonger) then maybe I could take you more seriously. As far as American imperialism is concerned, a neutral observer would find it difficult to see it as any less rapacious than the British version... I fail to understand your point about the founding fathers deciding on a republic. What are you trying to say?

[Terry Mauro]

If you stop making silly errors of historical fact -- like claiming that the American Revolution was caused by British free trade policies -- and totally unsupported claims (Schwartzenegger is a nazi, Bertrand Russell was a murdering warmonger) then maybe I could take you more seriously. As far as American imperialism is concerned, a neutral observer would find it difficult to see it as any less rapacious than the British version... I fail to understand your point about the founding fathers deciding on a republic. What are you trying to say?

Mike, but I am not interested in you or your faulty opinions. I am right and you are wrong. I certainly dont care your opinion of me.

Understand?

[Mike Tribe]

A delightful debating style...

[Len Colby]

The bet didnt center around how many "quotes" I addressed. The bet was whether Lyndon LaRouche was a racist. You claimed you could provide evidence.

It’s bad enough that you are hopelessly ignorant about the basics of American history that ocurred decades or centuries ago but you can’t even remember what you typed a few days ago. The question has always been whether or not LaRouche made racist comments not whether he is or has ever been a racist.

On Oct 5 on the Sarah Palin thread in response to Don I wrote (post # 172):

“…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.”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=155626

Within a few minutes you replied (post # 173):

“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.”

So, the only thing I had to qualify for the $ 1000 was bring you “ONE racist quote” by your messiah, I brought you 5, you’ve only disputed one. Thus you should pay up, but since you don’t seem to be a person of your word I doubt you will, prove me wrong!

Note that even in my reply the ONLY question was whether or not he made racist comments. Not wanting to lead the Palin thread further astray I replied on this one and proposed the following to you (post # 12, pg 1):

"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."

All you provided was some warn out slanders from a paid poison pen named Dennis King. Every idiot on the internet "uses" Dennis King when they want to prove their intimate knowlege on LaRouche. It's nothing new.

I provide direct quotes of LaDouche 4 out of 5 of which were backed by scans of his literature. Unless you can produce evidence the scans were forgeries my source is irrelevant.

I provided you with names of former MLK associates who work with Lyndon LaRouche. Just as they worked with Martin Luther King.

Even if a large number of his top aides collaborated with LaRouche that would not be relevant to wether or not he made racist comments they were probably unaware of years before their association with him.

As far as George Wallace being rejected by 65% of the African American vote in Alabama?

That was in a first round primary with several other candidates, he increased that in the 2nd round against one other opponent and got 90% of the vote in the general election. That’s better than Obama was doing against McCain in Florida and Georgia in polls taken a few months ago and better than Kerry in 2004 nationwide.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=154398

George Wallace changed his tune as a result of those African Americans like Amelia Robinson who fought to make changes in the south. If Wallace wanted to get elected in 1982 then he had to appeal to African Americans. He did not have to concern himself with the black vote during the early 1960's.

What is interesting is not that he made overtures to the black community but rather that they responded. The SCLC easily could have said no when he asked to addresses them.

So the very people who embrace Lyndon LaRouche were also the people who changed history (try googling that you nitwit) working with Dr. King.

1) This is irrelevant.

2) As has been repeatedly pointed out only a small number of mid-level people joined up with LaRouche. The most important was just sentenced to 15 years prison time because before after and during his association with LaRouche he was “sexually educating” his daughters when they were as young as six by raping them.

If you are so sure these former associates of MLK now working with LaRouche did so blindly then why dont you send Theo Mitchell and email and ask him? You wont do this because you're a coward.

I won’t because it’s not relevant.

"What you want to try and do now, is keep the debate centered around whether a 1970's article can be argued to be racist."

I think most people would agree it and the other quotes were racist.

"It is almost as crazy as your argument that John Kennedy simply wanted to fund a ride to the moon and return."

The evidence indicates that was his primary objective. Of course in doing so technology was developed that enable other projects, but we're are going off topic.

"And what's the point of asking whether LL ever addressed the SCLC?"

Your line of argument is basically ‘LaRouche can’t have made racist comments in the 70’s because in the 80’s black leaders started associating with him’ but MLK’s organization invited (or allowed) his most infamous foe to address them.

You just go on and on with this nonsense. What has that got to do with whether or not LaRouche is a racist?

I've posted this link before but I guess you missed it http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2004/3104mlk_talladega.html

Praising King in 2004 doesn’t indicate he couldn’t have made racist comments 30 years earlier. Are you the one who describe him as a “nasty Communist”?