Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2476 of 5796 (858174)
07-18-2019 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2472 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2019 2:25 AM


Talk about threats to democracy. (hint: it is not You Tube ads)
quote:
And this hack, by the way, was also how we now know there was a conspiracy to oust Bernie Sanders by the DNC in favor of Clinton.
The fact that the primary calendar was designed to ensure a huge Clinton advantage (over Sanders) was a much bigger deal than Russian ads.
Beyond the hacked stuff:
We also have the problem with a shocking, but little known fact:
Political parties can simply throw out election results.
Had Larouche actually gotten 50% in Michigan (2000 Democratic primary), instead of 41%, the election would have been thrown out.
Virginia LaRouche delegates were thrown out in 1996, and the courts allowed it to be done by the party (the elections were not under United States legal requirements but are a "private party affair" or something)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2472 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2019 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2478 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2019 9:43 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2482 of 5796 (858385)
07-19-2019 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2478 by Theodoric
07-18-2019 9:43 AM


Re: Talk about threats to democracy. (hint: it is not You Tube ads)
Below you combined 2 unrelated issues, but here is your first quote, Theodoric.
quote:
What is the evidence for this assertion?
Are you a LaRouche follower? LOL. He was a nutball. I really think his crazy conspiracy theories helped the rise of Trumpism.
This issue was covered in another thread, and I will find the "evidence", which will clearly establish an attempt to do what I described. It appears to have been successful too.
(But I want to get to the LaRouche stuff)
LaRouche was always a left-wing type, and he worked with right-wingers to attempt to form a broader movement. Every relationship he formed with right-wingers fell apart fairly quickly.
LaRouche was indeed a social conservative (Pro-life, anti-gay). He was anti-gay, and that seemed to cement him as a dangerous nut.
NEXT ISSUE:
The Michigan early Democratic primary (2000)
quote:
Not sure where this disinformation came from but it isn't true. First of all, Michigan did not have a primary in 2000. They held a caucus. Laoruche got less than 1% support. The GOP did hold a Primary that year. Any votes he received in the Primary did not matter as that was not the way to get state delegates.
There was an early primary that bumped other states. Gore and Bradley boycotted it, and that left LaRouche verses "none of the above". He was in a primary against the Democratic establishment.
You are looking at the later vote the party decided to hold.
quote:
You make it sound like he had a chance. He had one delegate from Virginia and one from Louisiana. Do you not think a political party should determine who is a member of that party. Especially when that person has beliefs counter to that party?
quote:
In the 1996 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he received enough votes in Louisiana and Virginia to get one delegate from each state, but before the primaries began, the Democratic National Committee chair, Donald Fowler, ruled that LaRouche was not a "bona fide Democrat" because of his "expressed political beliefs ... which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic," and because of his "past activities, including exploitation of and defrauding contributors and voters." Fowler instructed state parties to disregard votes for LaRouche

LaRouche was not attacked as "anti-Semitic" by progressive & anti-war Jewish folks. Aside from "liberal" cold-warriors, it was essentially politically "moderate" and conservative Jewish folks that made a big deal of his (lip service) anti-Zionism and his (for example) occasional comments and "white" and "Jewish" bankers hurting various places (like Latin American).
LaRouche was less anti-Semitic (and it is debatable if he really did have any real feelings of the sort) than the average Democratic party member is today.
He had a falling out with right-wing groups over his not-so-anti-Semitic operations.
Lyndon LaRouche - Wikipedia
Always remember that LaRouche was deeply into policies that included massive infrastructure projects around the world, and requiring multi-national cohesion. His proposals included spending hundreds of billions on Latin America. Marshall Plan type of stuff.
He had more to say about how help the world than America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2478 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2019 9:43 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2483 of 5796 (858486)
07-20-2019 6:24 PM


LaRouche really was against nationalism (though he didn't market himself overtly such
I struggle to find older papers (from 2000-2005) which clearly outlined his vision for Latin America (essentially a big United States investment to build infrastructure projects), but I will try to find them, somewhere.
It is difficult to talk about Larouche without all the "conspiracy" accusations (such as the ones from the one in the book - well received in the United States' mainstream media - Lyndon Larouche And The New American Fascism, which claims he was a CIA agent who used psychological operations against a dumb populace), but I will try to ignore all the mainstream media's conspiracy theories.
Here is a hint:
(after his death, this was from one of many articles)
(I will skip the first half-dozen paragraphs which give the ceremonial attacks, and get to the actual real stuff)
quote:
NDON LAROUCHE FEB. 13, 2019
Political Cult Leader Lyndon LaRouche Dies at 96
By Ed Kilgore
....
LaRouche had always maintained an organizational presence in Germany, and it’s there that he last made waves, as Foreign Policy reported during a German national campaign in 2017:
[Foreign Policy text]
A week before Germany’s federal elections, Berlin is blanketed in a layer of campaign posters, from Angela Merkel and the Christian Democratic Union’s bland slogan For a Germany in which we live well and happily to the far-right Alternative for Germany’s proclamation of preferring bikinis over burqas.
But one set of signs are particularly bizarre, even cryptic.
The future of Germany is the New Silk Road! reads one pinned to a streetlight near Berlin’s main train station.
Cultural renaissance instead of barbarism, reads another. And, Germans can stop world war!
These posters, in a matching blue and yellow color scheme, all urge Berliners to vote BSo.
What the posters don’t say is that BSo short for Brgerrechtsbewegung Solidaritt, or Civil Rights Movement Solidarity is a political party founded and operated by eccentric American millionaire Lyndon LaRouche and his German wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
[ny mag commentary: LaRouche was seizing on the idea that a German-Chinese alliance could save the world. And there was a lot of evidence that his real audience wasn’t in Germany but in Beijing:]
Journalists associated with the LaRouche’s news outlet, the Executive Intelligence Review, are regularly invited to Chinese government press conferences in Washington and are quoted extensively in Chinese state media, where they often parrot government propaganda
[T]here’s the dangerous possibility that Chinese officials and academics actually think the LaRouche movement is a serious Western group. For a middle-aged Chinese official with little experience in or contact with the West, distinguishing between LaRouche’s Schiller Institute and, say, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, or other mainstream think tanks is tough.
[NY Mag commentary: LaRouche was seizing on the idea that a German-Chinese alliance could save the world. And there was a lot of evidence that his real audience wasn’t in Germany but in Beijing:]
Journalists associated with the LaRouche’s news outlet, the Executive Intelligence Review, are regularly invited to Chinese government press conferences in Washington and are quoted extensively in Chinese state media, where they often parrot government propaganda
[T]here’s the dangerous possibility that Chinese officials and academics actually think the LaRouche movement is a serious Western group. For a middle-aged Chinese official with little experience in or contact with the West, distinguishing between LaRouche’s Schiller Institute and, say, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, or other mainstream think tanks is tough.
[End Foreign Policy quotes]
[back to NY Mage comments]
Deceptive to the end, LaRouche passes from the scene having migrated from Marxism to quasi-fascism, and from fake Democratic to fake German allegiances. It’s never been clear to what extent Lyndon LaRouche was a con man, or just a megalomaniac who drank too deeply of his own Kool-Aid. But he left a lot of damage in his wake. And in the end, the drug dealer Elizabeth II got the last laugh by outliving him.
Political Cult Leader Lyndon Larouche Dies at 96
Trump did not support infrastructure projects like the Chinese Silk Road.
Trump was not anti semitic (one of his rare public virtues).
Trump did not work with civil rights leaders.
The L A Times got this wrong.
quote:
Readers React: The political cult of the late Lyndon LaRouche just wouldn’t leave this reader alone
FEB. 17, 2019 3 AM
To the editor: If the Democratic Party ever had a Donald Trump, it was Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., who died Feb. 12.
To the editor: If the Democratic Party ever had a Donald Trump, it was Lyndon H.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2484 of 5796 (858562)
07-21-2019 9:30 PM


After the "air-born AIDS" and anti-Semitic stuff passed, LaRouche was pretty good.
I was trying to find the Popular Science article on the western water shortage, which mentioned a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers idea to divert water from Alaska through Canada to Arizona. I failed, but I found this.
quote:
China Plans $4.7 Billion Renovation of Haitian Capital
by Cynthia R. Rush
A PDF version of this article is in the September 8, 2017 issue of Executive Intelligence Review and is re-published here with permission.
Sept. 5 (EIRNS)On Aug. 25, Ralph Youri Chevy, mayor of the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, formally accepted a $4.7 billion proposal from China’s Southwest Municipal Engineering Design and Research Institute (SMEDRIC), to renovate and rebuild that city, including its port, over the next three years, providing all the infrastructure required to modernize the capital and uplift its impoverished population. This nation of ten million, which shares the island of Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic, has never recovered from the effects of the January 2010 earthquake that killed 250,000 people, injured tens of thousands more, and wiped out what little infrastructure existed.
Although financing for the renovation is not yet pinned down, journalist Georgeanne Nienaber noted in an Aug. 27 article in The Huffington Post that China has made good on similar projects in its estimated trillion-dollar Silk Road initiative, not to mention 30 futuristic infrastructure projects in its own country. Perhaps the future has finally arrived for Haiti, and as a result, the Caribbean corridor will be transformed. Telesur news agency reported Sept. 1 that the initial idea for the project was conceived of at the May 14-15 summit of the Belt and Road Initiative in Beijing.
The Chinese proposal stands in stark contrast to the criminal actions of the Obama Administration and allied Western donors, who rejected the proposals made by American statesman Lyndon LaRouche in February 2010, by which the U.S. would sign a 25-year bilateral treaty with the Haitian government to rebuild the nation, based on an emergency deployment of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and other military and civilian agencies with expertise in responding to natural disasters. The immediate priority at that time was to relocate to higher ground, the almost two million homeless earthquake victims stranded in Port-au-Prince, with the necessary medical and other services, before the arrival of the rainy season brought another wave of mass deaths.
During a Jan. 30, 2010 international webcast, LaRouche warned that you cannot apply a band-aid to Haiti, because the objective is, if the country is going to be viable . . . you have to have a sovereign Haiti. Haitians, he added, have been subjected to all kinds of terrible history; . . . promised this, and betrayed, and promised that, and betrayed, and promised and betrayed. . . . So, it’s a model approach: we make a contract with the government, as a treaty agreement between the United States and Haiti, to assure the rebuilding of their country, in a form in which it will actually be a functioning country which can survive.
China Plans $4.7 Billion Renovation of Haitian Capital
I will skip 6-8 paragraphs to the end
quote:
Many other Caribbean nations are also looking forward to a brilliant future with China’s help. Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Barbados, Guyana, and Cuba are among the governments that have signed major agreements with the Chinese government, or Chinese state-sector companies or private entities, to build needed infrastructure.
I don't think LaRouche's anti-Semitic tactics, from last century, were harmless, but once he noticed it was bad practice, it would have been nice if the media gave him the coverage his campaigns SHOULD HAVE EARNED HIM.
He got nearly 25% against Gore in Arkansas (2000 primary).
His ideas deserved coverage.
China seems to have listened to him, to some extent, anyway.
FEDIT FOUND ARTICLE i was looking for.
Strategies for a Changing Planet: Water | Popular Science
The first 8 paragraphs will be skipped, but here were the concluding two paragraphs.
quote:
SCIENCE
Strategies for a Changing Planet: Water
The amount of water on Earth is fixed, but everything else is changing fast
By Elizabeth Royte
July 12, 2012
....
The Army Corps of Engineers, in the 1950s, proposed what remains perhaps the most audacious transfer scheme of all. By diverting the flow of Alaskan rivers through Canada and down to the lower 48 states, the North American Water and Power Alliance would double the amount of freshwater available to farmers and growing cities in the west. The scheme fell out of political favor but was later adopted and tweaked by Lyndon LaRouche, the once-perennial presidential candidate. Legal, political, economic, social and environmental considerations aside, the plan is highly complex and, if history is any guide, would precipitate more problems than it solved. (An overview on LaRouche's website says it "signifies a change in the organization of the planet as a whole.")
LaRouche's plan is loopy, but humans have, in fact, already reorganized the planet's hydrological regimes by mainlining carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can try to cope by moving water around, changing it from salty to fresh, or conjuring it from thin air using chemical reactions. These manipulations will become more difficult as we hit economic and physical limits. But with smart management, cooperation and planning, we can find a way to live within these limits and to share the planet's water equitably with people and with nature.
I have to admit that I have a soft spot for the "mad" technocrat.
We lost something when the corrupt media ignored the old pacifist.
Here is a well-received book (entire text readable in link) that claims he was a CIA agent or something.
(I have never read it, but read interviews of the author in leading news outlets, while the publications glowingly praised the "conspiratorial-minded" research and conclusions)
https://web.archive.org/...rouche.org/newamericanfascism.htm
(see the conspiracy theory - about the conspiracy theorist - that the mainstream media loved)
(The media loved the theory of the critic. Hated the conspiratorial LaRouche)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2485 of 5796 (858565)
07-21-2019 11:07 PM


Election and voting information | FEC see Michigan
Larouche got 29.42%

Replies to this message:
 Message 2488 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2019 10:43 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2486 of 5796 (858567)
07-22-2019 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 2478 by Theodoric
07-18-2019 9:43 AM


Back to the other issue of your Theodoric (and a question about LaRouche)
I said this:
quote:
The fact that the primary calendar was designed to ensure a huge Clinton advantage (over Sanders) was a much bigger deal than Russian ads.
You said this:
quote:
What is the evidence for this assertion?
Are you a LaRouche follower? LOL. He was a nutball. I really think his crazy conspiracy theories helped the rise of Trumpism.
Your next issue was about the Michigan primary (see above post).
Here is the wikileaks revelation
WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails
Now, back to LaRouche.
(I wonder what you feel about the media blackout of him)
Here was a "puff piece" (as one United States journal described this Chinese government publication)which tells how his German wife initially thought of him when they were meeting.
Identifying with China
By Chen Weihua in Washington China Daily USA
Updated: 2017-08-18
quote:
Life-changing trip
Of her seafaring in 1971, Helga said she was shocked by the extreme poverty she saw in Africa. She described it as "such a shocking experience" and seeing Africa "from the bottom".
"I came back from this trip with the absolute conviction that the world had to change, had to be improved," she said.
Back in Germany, Helga tried to look for a theory to fix the problem that haunted her. She found Lyndon LaRouche, a US political activist better known for launching the LaRouche Movement.
The movement, which has included many organizations and companies in the world, promotes a revival of classical art and greater commitment to science; advocates the development of major economic infrastructure projects on a global scale; and calls for reform of the world financial system to encourage investment in the physical economy and suppress financial speculation.
Helga found Lyndon to be the only one who talked about the need for the development and industrialization of Africa and Third World countries, as well as the establishment of an international development bank, something like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) today.
"Then I became part of the movement," she said. On Dec 29, 1977, the two got married in Wiesbaden, a city in west central Germany.
Helga said she did not follow the Third World theory of then-Chinese leader Chairman Mao Zedong but paid more attention to the Non-Aligned Movement headquartered in Indonesia.
She has met some world leaders such as Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Mexican President Jose Lopez-Portillo.
Helga said they had been promoting the idea of development of a Eurasian land bridge through infrastructure in the early 1990s, but did not receive a positive response from the US. "The only government which responded positively was China," she said.
In 1996, she returned to China for the first time to attend and speak at a meeting on Eurasia
Identifying with China - USA - Chinadaily.com.cn
I would have liked to see views of this type presented in the political debate.
We were robbed by a corrupt news media.
The same media that was (especially during the 1996-2000 cycle) loudly ranting about McCain-Feingold (specifically) and Campaign Finance Reform generally.
The forces opposed to the reforms (often pushing - actually exceeding - the limits of constitutional limits on speech) often mentioned the power of the media in silencing folks, and the need for free speech enabling tools such as campaign freedoms (like raising dollars).
Lyndon LaRouche's experience backed up the critics. LaRouche suffered a TOTAL blackout from the television media that was genuinely fraudulent; his fundraising standing place - relative to his 2004 Democratic rivals - WAS ACTUALLY OUTRIGHT LIED ABOUT, infact the entire Democratic field was lied about. His fundraising position was not presented in the stats, so the relative position of his rivals (of all of those who raised less than him) was numbered in a deliberately incorrect position.
quote:
2004
He waged a campaign, begun in October 2002,[12] to have Dick Cheney dumped from the Republican ticket.
Again, LaRouche gained negligible electoral support. However, according to Federal Election Commission statistics, LaRouche had more individual contributors to his 2004 presidential campaign than any other candidate, until the final quarter of the primary season, when John Kerry surpassed him. As of the April 15 filing, LaRouche had 7834 individual contributions, of those who have given cumulatively, $200 or more, as compared to 6257 for John Kerry, 5582 for John Edwards, 4090 for Howard Dean, and 2744 for Gephardt.[13]
Lyndon LaRouche U.S. presidential campaigns - Wikipedia
Look at the fundraising from individuals in 2004.
2004 Presidential Race | OpenSecrets
LaRouche outraised 4 Democratic rivals, but was below 5.
(The television media - especially CNN - dishonestly claimed to be presenting fundraising statistics while ignoring LaRouche's dollar amounts and his entire candidacy)
The other 9 were invited to the debates, and the media sponsored most of the debates.
The media did not cover him at all in 2004.
I think the media dishonesty is scary, in a manner 100 times more extreme than LaRouche's more scary elements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2478 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2019 9:43 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2489 of 5796 (859860)
08-03-2019 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2488 by Theodoric
08-03-2019 10:43 AM


Re: 2000 Michigan primary results are meaningless
But what do the papers have to say about rules being followed?
What do the papers have to say about relative votes?
quote:
Is Lyndon a Democrat?
Print edition | United States
Jun 22nd 2000 | Little Rock
LYNDON LAROUCHE is is not your ideal presidential candidate. He's a convicted felon, for a start. He did not even bother to register to vote in the last presidential election. His hyperventilating prophecies of world financial collapse and international Jewish conspiracies are ignored in most of America. But not in Arkansas, one of the few southern states that Al Gore might win.
Last month, Mr LaRouche received 53,280 votes, or 22% of the total, in the Arkansas Democratic primary. That was 17,000 more than George W. Bush received from the Republican Party on the same day. Mr LaRouche's tally should gain him at least ten state delegates at the Democratic convention in August in Los Angeles. That is, unless the Arkansas Democrats stop him. On June 24th, at the Arkansas State Convention, the party's leaders will officially amputate Mr LaRouche's delegates from Mr LaRouche and give them to Mr Gore instead.
Is Lyndon a Democrat? | The Economist
10 or 7 delegates should have been his based on the actual votes.
Stolen.
quote:
Lyndon LaRouche, a perennial candidate who runs for president as a Democrat every four years, is suing to get the delegates he won with nearly 22 percent of the votes he received in the Arkansas presidential primary.
Arkansas Democrats, with the enthusiastic approval of the national party, have refused to seat his backers at the state party convention in Hot Springs on Saturday.
They accuse Mr. LaRouche of racism and wackiness, and say he isn't a legitimate candidate.
The state party insists that since Mr. LaRouche doesn't qualify as a party candidate he can't participate in the state convention to determine who will represent the state at the party's national convention in Los Angeles in August.
Mr. LaRouche contends in his lawsuit, to be heard tomorrow in Pulaski Circuit Court in Little Rock, that on the basis of the 22 percent of the vote in the Arkansas presidential primary he is entitled to seven delegates at the national convention. He bases the claim on an Arkansas law. It stipulates that any candidate receiving 15 percent or more of the presidential primary vote is entitled to have delegates represent him at the national convention.
....
Nevertheless, in winning 22 percent of the vote against Al Gore in the May primary, he received more than 30 percent of the vote in seven Arkansas counties and more than a thousand votes in 16 largely rural counties. In the absence of a favorable ruling in his lawsuit, Al Gore will get all 48 Arkansas delegates.
....
The dispute over the LaRouche delegates is unlikely to be heard at the Los Angeles convention, but the party has had contentious fights in the past over the seating of disputed delegates. In 1964, when blacks were prevented from participating in the selection of delegates from Mississippi, Fannie Lou Hamer and others organized the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.
The freedom group sent delegates to the convention, staged a fight with the party credentials committee, and prevailed. The dispute led to a reform of delegate selection and opened the party to the participation of blacks in several Southern states where they had been excluded or discouraged.
LaRouche sues to get his delegates - Washington Times
And LaRouche did perform in other states
Oklahoma primary, March 14,2000
quote:
Gore 69%
Bradley 25%
LaRouche 6%
Pennsylvania primary, April 4, 2000
quote:
Gore 74%
Bradley 21%
LaRouche 5%
Oregon, May 16,2000
quote:
Gore 85%
LaRouche 11%
We saw the 22% total in Arkansas.
And the fact is that there should have been delegates, since there were taxpayer funded Federal Matching Funds given to the Democratic party plus 3 of the party's candidates. LaRouche got the matching funds! Look it up.
The Washington Times article mentions the Supreme Court decision in 1996 (and LaRouche would loose this 2000 legal challenge in the courts as well), but the courts are corrupt.
The court said the Democratic party primary was a "private club" (or something close to it), but why does a private club get taxpayer funds?
The courts are corrupt.
The media is corrupt.
The Democratic party has been very corrupt (not so "democratic").
Those are facts.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2488 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2019 10:43 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2493 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2019 3:54 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2490 of 5796 (859861)
08-03-2019 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2488 by Theodoric
08-03-2019 10:43 AM


Re: 2000 Michigan primary results are meaningless
Theodoric has an interesting view of history.
Here is some of his spin.
quote:
The democratic primary meant nothing, so the vast majority of Democrats would not have bothered to vote in it.
I should remind him that in 1960, Louisiana had 3,257,022 people reside there, and over a quarter of the people were black. Blacks were mostly Republican then.
Louisiana - Wikipedia
But look at the "democratic" situation.
quote:
The long absence of Republicans from state positions, from the turn of the century through much of the 1960s, was due to the party having been hollowed out by the Democrats passing a new constitution in 1898 that disenfranchised most African Americans in the state, who made up 47% of the population in 1900.[1] But by 1900, two years after the new constitution, only 5,320 black voters were registered in the state, despite their advances in education and literacy.[2] They had constituted the majority of Republican Party members in the 19th century after gaining the franchise as freedmen and citizens in the post-Civil War years.
Treen served as governor from 1980 to 1984. He lost his bid in 1983 for reelection to his popular long-time rival, Democrat Edwin Edwards, who was returning after two previous terms. Treen had earlier been elected to Congress in 1972, serving from 1973 to 1980. Treen grew up as a Democrat, but joined the Republican Party in 1962. At the time, there were about 10,000 registered Republicans in the state; African Americans, who had previously made up most of the party members, were still mostly disenfranchised. By the time of Treen's death in 2009, only a few other living Louisiana Republicans had exceeded his length of tenure in the Republican Party.
Dave Treen - Wikipedia
That was 1962.
LaRouche ran from 1976 to 2004.
In the long shadow of a Democratic party that felt it could get away with the most egregious of "legal" tactics.
This nation has a dark side and the courts are part of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2488 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2019 10:43 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2492 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2019 3:44 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2494 of 5796 (860136)
08-05-2019 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2492 by Theodoric
08-05-2019 3:44 PM


Re: 2000 Michigan primary results are meaningless
quote:
Not sure what this has to do with the 2000 Michigan primary. That is the primary that was meaningless.
Absolutely nothing you posted here has anything to with my post. Just your typical random gobbledygook.
It has to do with Democrats being used to getting away with stealing their own votes, and preventing people from voting or being counted.
It is a party tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2492 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2019 3:44 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2497 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2019 8:19 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2495 of 5796 (860138)
08-05-2019 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2493 by Theodoric
08-05-2019 3:54 PM


Re: 2000 Michigan primary results are meaningless
quote:
LaRouche received .7% of the total votes in all primaries that year. So how was he ripped off?
His Arkansas delegates were ripped off.
The media blackout.
The fact that the Democratic party kept him off of some of the state ballots, like Georgia and Florida.
(He got 1.91% in 2000, and 5.9% in 1996. Clinton got about 89% in 1996.)
2000 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia
LaRouche would have done better had there not been the dishonest reporting, which ignored everything LaRouche - to the point that they lied about candidates relative standing in the "fundraising race".
He got more support than Bill Bradley at the March 25 Democratic Caucus in Wyoming. 7.28% verses 4.98%. Yet the media blackout was in full force.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2493 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2019 3:54 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2501 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2019 10:27 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2503 of 5796 (860343)
08-06-2019 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2501 by Theodoric
08-06-2019 10:27 AM


Re: 2000 Michigan primary results are meaningless
quote:
Done here. All you are doing is a gish gallop. Throwing random crap out in order to pretend you have won the debate. You have moved the goal posts and changed your argument numerous times. You have posted so many strawman arguments it is impossible to even count them all. I am not even sure what your actual argument is.
Seemingly you think LaRouche would have been the Democratic candidate for President at some point. This is laughable on its face. There is no evidence of more than even a modicum of support for LaRouche as President. He was a felon and a nutball. He was a racist and an anti-Semite. He marketed himself as an amazing economist, but facts show he was wrong on almost all his predictions on the economy.
It seems you are a member of the cult. Good for you.
But like every time I get into a debate with you go total gish gallop and post random incoherent bs and gobbledygook. Like times before. I am done.
Talk about a "gish gallup"!
"It seems you are a member of the cult" takes the cake.
I can't even remember your initial issue.
Wasn't it about delegates?
quote:
Seemingly you think LaRouche would have been the Democratic candidate for President at some point.
When did I say that?
You make up so much crap, that it is unreal.
I almost did not quote anything, because I did not know where to start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2501 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2019 10:27 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2504 of 5796 (860348)
08-07-2019 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2501 by Theodoric
08-06-2019 10:27 AM


Theodoric's gish gallop raised an issue I would like to see elaboration on.
This post is a question to Theodoric. It has nothing to do with my views (infact very little of what I have said about the Democratic party process - involving LaRouche - is about my own views on political positions).
Theodoric said:
quote:
He was a racist and an anti-Semite.
Aside from anti-Semitic stuff,when did he make racist comments against anybody?
Like during the time he ran for President (1976-2004)
Please show evidence and have evidence from each decade, not some random b.s. (like LaRouche, while a guest on a radio program, laughing at a caller's "monkey" joke about Obama in 2010)
As for the anti-Semitic stuff, here was a New York Times review (of the Dennis King book) from:
George Johnson, an editor of The Week in Review of The New York Times, is the author of ''Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics.''
quote:
ARCHIVES | 1989
A MENANCE OR JUST A CRANK?
By GEORGE JOHNSONJUNE 18, 1989
LYNDON LaROUCHE AND THE NEW AMERICAN FASCISM By Dennis King. Illustrated. 415 pp. New York: Doubleday. $19.95.
It is probably safe to assume that Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche Jr. is the only person who has ever campaigned for President with a platform that included his own version of quantum theory. The currently accepted view, you see, was foisted upon the world by that archconspirator Werner Heisenberg, whose notorious uncertainty principle - a cornerstone of modern physics - was an evil ploy to demoralize the world with the notion that at the roots of reality everything happens at random.
Or so it appears to the hyperactive band of pseudo-intellectuals that forms the inner sanctum of Mr. LaRouche's political machine. To the orderly mind of the conspiracy theorist there is no such thing as randomness. Every coincidence, every accident is meaningful. History is a war between good and evil in which everything unfolds according to plan.
....
As Mr. King would have it, Mr. LaRouche is the leader of an organized fascist assault on the United States, a neo-Nazi whose philosophy has swung inexplicably from left to right. He even goes so far as to suggest that Mr. LaRouche's kookiness is intentional, a means of disarming his critics.
It is clear that the LaRouche conspiracy theory is designed to appeal to anti-Semitic right-wingers as well as to Black Muslims and nuclear engineers. But in trying to see Mr. LaRouche as a would-be Fuhrer, Mr. King may be trying to tie together the whole unruly package with too neat a ribbon. A number of loose ends hang out, not least of which is the fact that many members of Mr. LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish.
This is the best book that is likely to be written about this strange man and his movement. But I didn't come away convinced, as I was supposed to be, that Mr. LaRouche is dangerous. Lyndon LaRouche is less important as a threat to our political system than as a case study in the pathology of political paranoia. Of course, Mr. King might argue that that is exactly what Lyndon LaRouche would have me believe.
A MENANCE OR JUST A CRANK? - The New York Times
So, do you care to offer any actual substance, Theodoric.
You are high on false accusations (which were based around issues that were NOT the topic anyway), so do you care to offer anything useful on these issues you choose to throw out?
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2501 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2019 10:27 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2506 of 5796 (860447)
08-07-2019 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2505 by Theodoric
08-07-2019 10:33 AM


Theodoric still hasn't backed up his claim that I said LaRouche would have won
I doubt he ever will be able to back up his lies. He galloped away from the my topic of Democrats stealing votes.
(And he brought in a lot of stuff that was 100% irrelevant to what I ever brought up in this thread, AND AND AND AND in his typically personally accusatory nature)
I only want to comment on the issue of LaRouche being a racist against blacks.
I admit that the Obama years did seem to see the 85 (in 2007) year old LaRouche start to use words, at times, like "monkey", though I think he was being deliberately provocative (I suspect he felt he could deny it was racist, since "whites look more like chimps than anybody" , being the out-of-touch old man that he is).
Remember Bush was called "chimp boy" (and presented as a monkey), and blacks have told me (including a VERY GOOD friend who got a year's worth of Starbuck's drinks for free for being ignored by white coffee servers while serving white customers from behind in line) that it is a common saying in the black community that "whites look like chimps".
I agree that any reference to monkeys and minorities is racist, due to the historical attacks on people of color, but I am sure LaRouche got some idea in his head that it was an interesting idea to throw the words & jokes around.
IT WAS BAD!
But I want to get back to his 1980 comment about Jews and pop music. Theodoric just informed me, via his link, of it, I never saw it before.
(This is the only skin color racist comment from the pre-Obama years I have found)
The quote if from Theodoric's first link.
quote:
"Jews are only N****** turned inside out."
"We will present the grotesque spectacle of individuals and sections of the pop music business competing in racialist serf-identification, tribal genealogy, and racist psychosis--the psychological truth of the whole affair being perhaps best summarized in the racist and anti-Semitic adage of the old South, 'Jews are only N****** turned inside out.'"
From LaRouche's Campaigner magazine "The racist roots of Jazz" (Sept./Oct. 1980, p.56)
I will just say that this starts out by looking like just another conspiratorial attack on Jews, except for the last part which seems to bring skin color into the anti-Semitic part. LaRouche was never accused of seeing Jews as anything other than a white group (unlike Nazis).
I am sure LaRouche would have said that the (admitted) "racist and anti-Semitic" quote didn't 100% fit the point he was trying to make.
As for the conspiracy issue of (along the lines of) "whites creating 'black culture' which is not black of African", there were mainstream Democratic publications that made the same claim as late as the early 1990's.
Remember Marty Peretz's The New Republic made an issue in 1990 that rap is not genuinely 'black'.
I am not easy with this stuff, but it is interesting that the music issue (with a quote of a disagreeable "quote with a quote" in 1980) is the only thing Theodoric found from before 2007/2008.
I am not convinced that LaRouche made racist comments against blacks, until the Obama years.
(From what I still know, I don't think LaRouche held racist views against blacks, but he did use tactics that included using words racists use. And since racists still exist, that is very bad. Harmful for sure.)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2505 by Theodoric, posted 08-07-2019 10:33 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2507 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-07-2019 9:05 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2507 of 5796 (860486)
08-07-2019 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2506 by LamarkNewAge
08-07-2019 4:06 PM


Re: Theodoric still hasn't backed up his claim that I said LaRouche would have won
http://wlym.com/archive/campaigner/8009.pdf
Here is the pdf issue that has the Jazz conspiracy theory.
I have not read it yet, but somebody can bring it up in my new thread.
The cover has a white person (a Jewish man, I suppose) with "black-face" paint.
I suspect the "Jewish control"-angle was LaRouche's only intent, though the "black-face" paint will be seen - especially today - as an attack on black skin features.
I NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING (this is an edit)
The blackface was something that actually happened. It was a cover based on an actual act (it might have been a legit picture)
quote:
George Gershwin ScoresWith "Do It Again"
It is Friday morning, November 2, 1923.The high society circlesin New
York arebuzzing with excitement and exhilaration. Telegrams are flying
back and forth between New York, Paris, and London with news of a
major milestone in American music, definitely the latest thing in the area
of culture and the artsin general.
The night before in New York's Aeolian Hall, soprano EvaGauthier
has done the unthinkable. In a major classical concert hall song recital,
she has performed a selection of jazz songs, accompanied by their author,
George Gershwin, at the piano, for an audience of elite society and
musicians.
The concert represents the fruition of two decades of effort on the
part of these circles.
The Gershwin songs have been programmed together with two
groups of songs by modem composers, including those of B_la Bart6k,
Paul Hindemith, Darius Milhaud, and the American premier of early
songs by the Viennese composer Arnold Schoenberg, who was later to
become the father of the musical psychosisknown asatonalism.
However, it is the Gershwin songs which make the greatest impact.
The selection includes the song "Swannee," which, sung in blackface by
A1Jolson, had been Gershwin's first smash hit three years before. The
Friday edition of the New York World carriesa rave review by Deems
Tay!or, describing the event:
Mr. Gershwin began to do mysterious and fascinating rhythmic and
contrapuntal stunts with the accompaniment .... The audience was as
much fun to watch as the songs were to hear, for it began by being a
trifle patronizing and ended by surrendering completely to the alluring
rhythms of our own folk music .... It behaved exactly like any
6 September/October 1980/ CAMPAIGNER
audience at any musical show--which is to say that Miss Gauthier had
to come back and sing Mr. Gershwin's incomparable " Even then her hearers were not satistied,
and she had to do it again?
I just started to read the magazine.
I should also point out that the article attacks non-Jewish whites.
quote:
THE BRITISH ORIGINS
OF NAZI EUGENICS
Purported scientists, including Nobel Laureates, have
begun reviving the hideous theory of the racial basis of
intelligence--the theory that provided the rationale for
the Nazi death camps. Today's race scientists, operating
under the aegis of the international mental health
organizations, draw their ideas from a long line of
kooks and frauds, which has been sponsored, ironically, by the world's best argument against the practice
of "breeding" human being: Britain's aristocratic
blue-bloods.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2506 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-07-2019 4:06 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2508 of 5796 (860490)
08-07-2019 11:22 PM


The person in "blackface" was Al Jolson (the photo seems to be legit) (see wikipedia)
Al Jolson - Wikipedia
He was Jewish, but here is another issue that might explain the N-word use by the publication (LaRouche was not involved in the magazine issue anyway, so this quote of a quote is not from LaRouche's pen)
I actually stopped quoting the magazine, earlier, right before the N-WORD came up again.
(this pasting caused words to be dropped, but read anyway to get the gist)
quote:
Weeks before the concert, Carl van Vechten, who had brought
Gershwin and Gauthier together to do the recital, carefully primed the ,
New York critics as to the correct interpretation of the significance of
the concert. Van Vechten, author of the play Nigger Heaven, was a close
friend of Harlem Renaissance matron Mabel Dodge, as well as of
Dodge's Parisian prototype, Gertrude Stein.
Writing to one critic, van Vechten had instructed:
I consider this one of the very most important events in American
musical history, and it will lure me back to the concert hall, from
which I have held aloof for two years.... Of course you could hardly
complain that this music does not get a hearing, and a good hearing,
too (I consider Paul Whiteman's orchestra about the bestin the world,
and there are plenty of vaudeville singers who do these tunesjustice),
but most seriousmusiciansin this country, although peffecdy willing
to sing or play "The Old Folks At Home" or some early German or
French folksong, seem to feel that "Alexander's Ragtime Band,"
"Ragging the Scale," "Waiting for the Robert E. Lee," "Swannee,"
"Running Wild," and other such songs, among the indubitable works
of musical genius that this country has produced, are beneath contempt.
This is not the opinion of Ravel, or of Stravinsky, orof the Six.
One of the mostfamous of the Europeanmodems wires me impatiendy
to send him all the new ones) Jazz in the concerthall--doingthe
I suggest that we get up a torchlight procession, headed by Paul
Whiteman and his orchestra,"to honor Miss Gauthier, the pioneer.
Mind you, I prophesy that the Philharmonic will be doing it in two
years?
The latter was no prophecy; the plan was already on the drawing
board. Less than four months later, on the afternoon of Lincoln's
birthday, February 12, 1924, an overflow audience was brought to
Aeolian Hall to witness Gershwin's debut as a serious composer with the
Paul Whiteman jazz band. Lincoln's Birthday had been chosen purposely
for the occasion: the Whiteman-C-ershwin concert, which constituted
the first all-jazz event in a major classical concert hall, was designed to
signal the emancipation of jazz from its alleged origins in black chattel
slavery and the abolitionist movement of the 19th century.
Here was something said later
quote:
American popular music has been a nasty operation from its inception, was not unnoticed by the
Specifically, we are going to show you how foremost musicologist of:
the same circles which ran the institution of slavery in this country,
as well as the slave trade itself, cultivated the most backward and
superstitious elements of black culture under slavery through their
sponsorship of the fundamentalist cults of the 18th and 19th centuries.
these same circles, through the hideously racist "blackface"
sadistically parodied the very image of
blacks which they themselves had thus created, and America
accepted this as entertainment
the same circles then built a multimillion dollar entertainment yearbook funded by his
industry upon this racist parody, for the purpose of disseminating
an infantile and regressive moral outlook throughout the population as a whole
based upon the success of this industry, new forms of music were have exchanged their
created, also under a fraudulent black image, for the purpose of wealth of genius for jazz
continuing that regressive process in the population at large to the and other exotic types with
point of frank collective psychosis, with the moral wreckage...
The racist and anti-Semitic quote attributed to LaRouche - in Theodoric's source - was actually not from LaRouche.
I have not tracked down the spot in the magazine it was used, but considering the popular jazz-founders (in the 1920s) used the N-WORD in their titles, THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY A RACIST QUOTE WAS USED DURING THE SAME DISCUSSION.
It was a quote plainly stated to be "racist" by the article author (who clearly did not agree with the concept behind the racist N-word, and did not feel Jewish individuals were part of any racist racial concept - for better or worse).
It was a use of irony, which is much more tolerable when one understands the context.
The performers who made Jazz popular were white Jewish folks who wore blackface and had shows called "N***** Heaven"
(Van Vechten was not Jewish actually)
Carl Van Vechten - Wikipedia
(I have no opinion on the Jazz history conspiracy however)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024