Terry Mauro Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 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”? The key point is "made by LaRouche" not Dennis King. I knew all along that King would be all you would return with. Again what makes Dennis Kings allegations "true"? The bet doesnt rest on whether I address every turd you lay forth. The bet rests on the truthfulness of your claims. You lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 The key point is "made by LaRouche" not Dennis King. I knew all along that King would be all you would return with.Again what makes Dennis Kings allegations "true"? The bet doesnt rest on whether I address every turd you lay forth. The bet rests on the truthfulness of your claims. You're really getting desperate. The quotes were made by LaRouche King was simply the person who drew attention to them and posted the pamphlets so unless you can address the other quotes in a meaningful way or provide evidence the pamplets were fakes you owe me $ 1000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 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”? Colby let me be real clear. I never limited my stance to any particular decade. Therefore this pretext that LaRouche did it or "said it" or "wrote it" in the 1970's but not in the 1980's is rediculous. You come up with this insanity so that you can bring George Wallace's 1982 speech into play so you can then torture that into an explanation why LaRouche has ex- MLK associates working with him. Save this BS, it's your typical Rube Goldberg contraption. LaRouche has never been a racist, fascist, anti semite. And to date no one has proven otherwise. Posting the slanders of a 30 year full time anti LaRouche agent like Dennis King is not that smart. You feel safe in doing it because you know the limitations of the other members here They all profile identical to each other. They all think alike and they are all controlled by the same types of propoganda. But you create your own arguments. The George Wallace diversion was on par with your "counting" influential African Americans. It's pointless because that isnt the argument. You attempt to control the argument by reducing it to these bizzare subsets. It reminds me of your arguments with Fetzer over controlled demolition. He is crazy and so are you. Neither address or answer the real question. LaRouche has never made a single racist comment in his entire life. And you havent done anything to prove otherwise. Sending a stooge by the name of Steve ? in an attempt to prode me into addressing some slander by King is not gonna work either. I dont care for swimming in swamps. You've proven nothing except you can paste a Dennis King slander. Hell, every anti LaRouche idiot with a computer has done that. You lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Mcdonagh Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Terry, unlike Len I have no intention of arguing with you (as you will see) as it is quite clear (at least on this forum) that you are too rigid in your beliefs and therefore incapable or unwilling of compromising. My previous comments in this thread could have been viewed as actually throwing you a ‘lifeline’, instead you chose to view them as support for Len and labelled me a stooge (which I thought was quite funny). When all you had to do was list the examples Len cited and show they came from a person(s), whom, has you say, are lifelong LaRouche haters, thereby calling their legitimacy into question. Which in the eyes of the average reader (or stooges as we are now called) would have had least forced a stalemate. But I wish the two of you the best of luck in your quest to rid the other from this forum. Stooge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Terry, unlike Len I have no intention of arguing with you (as you will see) as it is quite clear (at least on this forum) that you are too rigid in your beliefs and therefore incapable or unwilling of compromising. My previous comments in this thread could have been viewed as actually throwing you a ‘lifeline’, instead you chose to view them as support for Len and labelled me a stooge (which I thought was quite funny). When all you had to do was list the examples Len cited and show they came from a person(s), whom, has you say, are lifelong LaRouche haters, thereby calling their legitimacy into question. Which in the eyes of the average reader (or stooges as we are now called) would have had least forced a stalemate. But I wish the two of you the best of luck in your quest to rid the other from this forum. Stooge. I think it’s clear at this point that trying to have a rational discussion with Terry is an oxymoronical concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 17, 2008 Author Share Posted October 17, 2008 Terry, unlike Len I have no intention of arguing with you (as you will see) as it is quite clear (at least on this forum) that you are too rigid in your beliefs and therefore incapable or unwilling of compromising. My previous comments in this thread could have been viewed as actually throwing you a ‘lifeline’, instead you chose to view them as support for Len and labelled me a stooge (which I thought was quite funny). When all you had to do was list the examples Len cited and show they came from a person(s), whom, has you say, are lifelong LaRouche haters, thereby calling their legitimacy into question. Which in the eyes of the average reader (or stooges as we are now called) would have had least forced a stalemate. But I wish the two of you the best of luck in your quest to rid the other from this forum. Stooge. You never answered my question- "why are Dennis King's slanders of LaRouche true"? You wanted me to address them so that's what I've done. Now please tell me "what makes the statements true"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Terry, unlike Len I have no intention of arguing with you (as you will see) as it is quite clear (at least on this forum) that you are too rigid in your beliefs and therefore incapable or unwilling of compromising. My previous comments in this thread could have been viewed as actually throwing you a ‘lifeline’, instead you chose to view them as support for Len and labelled me a stooge (which I thought was quite funny). When all you had to do was list the examples Len cited and show they came from a person(s), whom, has you say, are lifelong LaRouche haters, thereby calling their legitimacy into question. Which in the eyes of the average reader (or stooges as we are now called) would have had least forced a stalemate. But I wish the two of you the best of luck in your quest to rid the other from this forum. Stooge. You never answered my question- "why are Dennis King's slanders of LaRouche true"? You wanted me to address them so that's what I've done. Now please tell me "what makes the statements true"? Because they are direct quotes from LaDouche pamphlets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Howard Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Terry, is it true that Schacht testified at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials? If so, it is not out of the question that it may be available via youtube......A company called Video Images produced a video a few years back entitled 905 Nazi War Crimes Trials - Newsreels and documentary footage of the fate of Goering, Hess, Schacht, Streicher, Keitel and the other remaining Nazis. Not for the squeamish. (1945) 67 minutes total. Some Nuremberg footage can be found on youtube via the Soviet Newsreels, but I am not sure that the two are one and the same. If memory serves correctly, wasn't Robert Morris one of those who did the questioning at Nuremberg, I always wondered if Morris questioned Schacht........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Robert here is a link to a 9 minute clip of Robert Jackson's cross of Schact. I haven't watched it, let us know what you think. It come with the following description: Justice Robert H Jackson conducted the cross examination of Hjalmar Schacht, the former Nazi Minister of Economics on May 2,1946. Schacht was later acquitted of all charges. For more information see www.roberthjackson.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Howard Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 (edited) Robert here is a link to a 9 minute clip of Robert Jackson's cross of Schact. I haven't watched it, let us know what you think.It come with the following description: Justice Robert H Jackson conducted the cross examination of Hjalmar Schacht, the former Nazi Minister of Economics on May 2,1946. Schacht was later acquitted of all charges. For more information see www.roberthjackson.org. Well, I am very appreciative of you providing the link. I watched the segment and it would be an understatement to say that I found it interesting. One good turn deserves another; although the information I am posting is not of the video variety, it is nonetheless interesting, hopefully to everyone reading along........ - Why Hjalmar Schacht was included in the list of defendants is unclear. In fact, the only charges brought against him were: contributing to Hitler’s, and the Nazi Party’s rise to power and promoting preparations for war. His dislike of the Versailles Treaty, his belief that the German military should once again be strong and his support of the Anschluss were well known, but these are hardly "war crimes." He was never in a position to exercise significant influence in any of the planning and preparation for war. Likewise, Schacht had never concealed his antisemitism and his agreement that Jews should be excluded from governmental and civil service positions. Hjalmar Schacht was a German financial expert and politician. After receiving his doctorate in economics, Schacht was employed by the Dresdner Bank, where he became deputy director in 1908. From 1916 to 1923 he served as director of the private National Bank for Germany. In November 1923 he was appointed national currency commissioner and one month later, president of the Reichsbank. In these posts he helped to stabilize the German currency. After 1924 he played a leading role in negotiations on German war reparations, but resigned in 1930 due to differences with the Weimar government. His alienation from the financial policies of the Weimar government pushed Schacht increasingly to the political right. He helped to introduce Hitler to industrial and financial leaders and played a key role in persuading President Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Reich chancellor in 1933. As a reward for his assistance, Schacht was reappointed head of the Reichsbank (1933-1939), named Minister of Economic Affairs (1935-1937), and Plenipotentiary for the War Economy (1935-1937). Schacht became the central figure in National socialist rearmament. Jurisdictional quarrels with Hermann Goering and disagreements over economic policy led to Schacht's gradual withdrawal. He remained Reich minister without portfolio until 1943. Schacht was implicated in the July 1944 plot to kill Hitler and was imprisoned for the remainder of the war. After the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg acquitted Schacht of all charges, he was tried and sentenced by a denazification court to eight years in a work camp. He was released in 1948. Absolved of all accusations related to his activities during the Third Reich, Schacht began a successful second career in 1950 as an economic and financial consultant for developing countries. END Although Schacht was arrested by the Allies and accused of war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials, he was acquitted and released in 1946. He was again arrested by Germans, tried in a denazification court and sentenced to eight years in a work camp, but was released early in September 1948. He formed the Düsseldorfer Außenhandelsbank Schacht & Co. after his release and became an economic and financial advisor for developing countries, in particular Non-Aligned heads of state. Schacht died in Munich, Germany on 3 June 1970. In a copyrighted newspaper story on August 12, 1946 columnist Leonard Lyons reported an article entitled Heard In Stockholm “In Nuremberg, Hjalmar Schacht asked General Lucius Clay for permission to call my good friend Ferdinand Eberstadt to testify in his behalf at the war trials. General Clay deemed it irrelevant to call Mr. Eberstadt, who is now a member of Mr. Baruch’s Atomic Energy Commission.” Sources: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...t/Schacht1.html http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...hy/Jackson.html http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...Morgenthau.html Len, do you know anything about Ferdinand Eberstadt? After the Nuremberg trials, there was the Krupp Trial, there was a conviction for someone with a similar name to Ferdinand Eberstadt, but I am not of the opinion it was the same person. Edited December 24, 2008 by Robert Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted December 27, 2008 Author Share Posted December 27, 2008 Terry, is it true that Schacht testified at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials? If so, it is not out of the question that it may be available via youtube......A company called Video Images produced a video a few years back entitled 905 Nazi War Crimes Trials - Newsreels and documentary footage of the fate of Goering, Hess, Schacht, Streicher, Keitel and the other remaining Nazis. Not for the squeamish. (1945) 67 minutes total.Some Nuremberg footage can be found on youtube via the Soviet Newsreels, but I am not sure that the two are one and the same. If memory serves correctly, wasn't Robert Morris one of those who did the questioning at Nuremberg, I always wondered if Morris questioned Schacht........ ******************************************* I came across this article from TIME Magazine, recently. Not sure if it addresses all you're asking about. Interesting. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...45405-1,00.html 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