Does anyone else find this Democrat offensive?
 

That is an interesting article about an interesting Democrat, Lyndon LaRouche. A little wacked, but interesting; a bit offensive too... :eek:

http://www.zimbio.com/The+Searched/a...ponsible+Obama

There are some more strange "predictions" from him, but someplace there has to be a line concerning "good taste".

I'm not sure offensive is the right word. Sad, tragic, unbalanced. Not as far gone as Charles Manson, but similar sort of cult of personality and warp world view

Lyndon LaRouche is as much of a Democrat as Rick Perry.

Regards,

D-Ray

Ain't it interesting how the blind so easily lump people into left or right, demo or repub?

Like there's no such thing as those that believe in what's best for everyone....

Even funnier to me, is it's usually the right winged radicals that do it the most..


I"m still waiting to be laughed at more for believeing planes might be spraying the skys..

LaRouche tried to found a Labor Party and when that fell on its arse he tried to get the Democratic nomination for pres, but as D-ray has pointed out if he is a Democrat so is Perry, and I am the King of Romania.:p

But your Majesty,

I mean... OMG!! You're not the King of Romania?! :eek:

Kinda like using the term "your side"? :p

From the article:

So even though he's ideologically at odds with mainstream Dems, he makes it possible to say that Democrats, not Republicans, are the ones comparing the president to arguably the most evil dictator the world has ever known.

That is to say that it's not the fact that he labels himself a Democrat that makes him wacky. He's simply wacky and claiming to be a Democrat to add to the shock value of his crazy proclamations. Also it provides cover for the crazy proclamations that are routine from the right fringe.

LeRouche has been a known quantity in these parts for decades as he lives in Leesburg, VA. He's a whackjob of epic proportions.

I am not at all certain that Hitler is the "most evil dictator the World has ever known," although he is most certainly a contender. Stalin, and especially Mao, in many ways, were even worse... Engineered famines, tens of millions of deaths of their own countrymen... Colonel Kaddaffi (or however the current spelling is), is often portrayed in the same mold as Saddam Hussein. The simple truth is that he was a coco-puff in comparison to the Iraqi, as Hussein was a cupcake in comparison to the three men listed above.

Yet this demented man, who claims to be a Democrat, is delusional in many ways. If he compares Obama to Hitler, he is insulting the naturalized German as there is no comparison. Obama is not a dictator, although at times I do believe he dreams of being one. Obama, although there is much misery in America right now and he is the long-time sitting President, he is not killing his own countrymen, nor has he launched a global war. If his comparison was to equate Obama to one of the three most brutal and ruthless dictators, he has failed. All three of these men are well out of Obama's league even if he were a dictator.:)

Is it summat in the water?:rolleyes:

You started it by lumping me as a lefty or demo whell.. Just using your terms to put you where you seem to wanna fit...

Hey leftie ;)

Backflips aside, LaRouche ran for the Dem nomination, not the GOP one. He tended to be a technocrat which I could see appealing to some elements of the left. Plus, running from jail should appeal to some of the current protesters :)

He did publish an interesting science journal, 'Fusion', which my dad read and tried to explain to us (me & sis). One article stuck with me (the title anyway) - 'A non-quarkish look at gluons.'

Pete

I'm not sure he's much whackier than many in this year's batch of GOP Republican candidates. He's certainly no crazier than Bachmann.

Comparing a good Democrat to Bachmann. I didn't think that you had the iron to do such a thing! I am impressed! :D

I would argue that neither are good for their respective chosen parties. What's most troubling to me is the fact that such lunatics can actually have followings in this country (though Bachmann's appears larger). It's a sad commentary on how ignorant and willing to be misled many of our countrymen are.

I'm pretty sure he's not 100% upstairs.

Whew, when I saw the thread title, I was pretty sure it was about me.

Just a note- there is no question surrounding the spelling of his name. We just don't have the same letters in our alphabet, so there are several ways to translate it. We're used to seeing foreign names from languages that share, for the most part, the same root as English so they don't have to translate. Berlusconi is just Berlusconi. There are no keys on your keyboard to spell Gaddafi correctly.

The difference is that the "gentleman" is a lunatic. I believe that he is troubled in many ways. That he is simply unstable perhaps. Mrs. Bachmann is not. She is merely the latest "whipping post" of the general media as she is a political conservative woman. That is something which is not supposed to exist, just like a Black Republican (Dr. Alan Keyes), a political conservative gay man (George Takai), a transgendered politically conservative (Julia Romans), or Hispanic Republican (Gloria Estefan)... This is the modus the media had with Palin. It had nothing to do with ability, but everything with ideology. Leftist crazies, like Jessie Jackson Jr., for example, who say all kinds of outlandish things, are hardly ever covered. This is an unbecoming duplicity. :)

No sweetie, that one is still in the oven! :p :D

Perhaps a Kucinich/LaRouche ticket? 'This Year, Why Not The Wackiest?' :D

LMAO! I'm sure we can arrainge it :)

Pete

She meets my definition of a lunatic. Easily. I have no issue with conservative women (I'm married to one, BTW). But I do with delusional people and she qualifies in my book.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-1...achmann-quotes

Now, there was great talk about credible sources in another thread.... Is this really a credible source? Many supposed quotes of Sarah Palin have been found to be fabrications. You better watch it, or your wife will take a wooden spoon to you! ;)

I think I've seen video clips of all of these. She is certifiably nuts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._Homosexuality

http://www.businessinsider.com/miche...ranite-state-1

Kucinich is an idealist, and not always practical, but not crazy. In fact, he's a world class intellect, just has his heads in the clouds a little bit. I think there are people on both sides who play that role, and it's good to have them around. It helps peopel remember what they're supposed to be trying to do. He's not really much different than someone like Ron Paul on the right. Kind of an expression of "pure" form of some ideology or other.

Good ol' Dennis is pure something, all right ;)

Pete

LaRouche might have chosen the Democrats as his putative platform, but the Democrats clearly did not select him.

Regards,

D-Ray

Ditto for Hillary, Buchanan, etc ;)

Pete

I think her statement that all Democrats in Congress should be investigated to make sure they are loyal to America is one of the most bat shit craziest things she has ever said.

I am praying she surges in the polls and is the Republican nominee. I would love to see her debate Obama. They are both lawyers and it should be an even match up. I am a little worried that Obama will be distracted by Michelle bobbing back and forth on her clown shoes while she deep throats an Iowa State Fair foot long corn dog.

Damn. With mad skillz like that, I might just have to change my opinion of her.:eek:

I am normally not one to complain about crude language, but the highlighted portion above, is beyond par. In fact, it is plainly offensive. I was not aware that this is a forum for explicit sex acts irregardless of how many (fake) pictures you post. :confused:

-------------------------------------------

As to the other: demand to investigate all Democrats in Congress... I hear no condemnation of Democrats who made similar statements in comparison to Republicans. You are very silent about Jessie Jackson, Jr. in particular (who has called for the imprisonment of all Republicans and stated that they (Republicans) should all be sent to Auschwitz an other occasion). How about Barney Franks? Perhaps Charlie Rangel rings a bell. They have all made similar, outrageous statements in the past.

Perhaps the DNC should nominate Jessie Jackson Jr. for the next President, as Barrack Obama is... shall we say: nowhere near as colorful. ;)

You forgot flame thrower....Anne Coulter. :D

Jessie is still paying for his "Himey" remark.

Heee heee... yes. She too gets lambasting. I've attended an appearance of hers in Wichita Falls. She has some interesting opinions. She certainly isn't crazy. I hate to debate her - she is extremely smart (and opinionated). Although I generally do not agree with her on many things, I was quite impressed by the presentation. :)

Yeh, she's a real cutie.:rolleyes:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

On March 16, 2011, discussing the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Coulter, citing research into radiation hormesis, wrote that there was "burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine."

You don't actually believe that people just criticize her because she's conservative, do ya?

What's wrong with that one? It says in the Qur'an that infidels should either convert or be killed. What is wrong with applying it to Islamic countries as they are driven by these religious beliefs? ;)

I really don't think she was serious, as have seen the footage where she said it, and the discussion centered around fundamentalist Islam.

Well, I can agree it didn't have anything to do with ability. That would imply she has some.

"The Liberal Media" is really getting over-played as a right-wing excuse. Palin is a perfect example. She said things that are absurd for someone running for Vice President. What magazines do you read? "All of them". What do you think of the Bush Docterine? "What do you mean, his view of the world?" No, not his view of the world, his frighteninigly broad policy that he used to justify an invasion of another country. Something you might want to be vaguely familiar with if you want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And "the media" made her look bad? The media didn't have to. She took care of that herself.

This is very similar to when you said we should have an immigration policy like Mexico- which sounds a lot like Iran. I don't think cherry-picking policy from the worst and lest successful countries on Earth is a great model. Kinda like asking Etheopia for a great plan to deal with domestic hunger.

+1. Nineteen @ssholes commit an horrific act of terrorism. I understand that much.

As a result, we should invade the countries of the world that are home to 1.5 Billion Muslims (almost 25% of the world's population), kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity? And you wonder, KG, why people criticize people who think like this? People who advocate such actions should be societally shunned, not paraded on to a (pseudo) news network to pontificate on issues of national importance.

She should be shunned so thoroughly that the only employment available to her would involve her keeping her mouth shut. Dancing in a strip club, perhaps.:eek:

Yes, I know. Obama sort of proved that point.

Party politics is all about ideology.
I believe we choose by the ability to communicate and to a degree...charisma. certainly not by experience or agenda.
Perhaps that will change. We can only hope. ;)

I'm not completely following here, but I'll try.

Are you suggesting that party politics is about ideology, but that electoral politics is not? We might be close to agreement. Most in a party will share a similar ideology - to a greater of lesser degree depending on the party. Because most voters are affiliated with a party, I would suggest that most voters vote on the basis of ideology.

However, it is the 20-30% who aren't affiliated with a party who more often than not decide elections. I would expect that ideology is less important to that portion of the electorate.

Two things I don't understand: How much do you distinguish between agenda and ideology? I don't see a lot of difference. Next, are you suggesting that voters should rely more on experience and agenda (perhaps including ideology) than they do on the ability to communicate and/or charisma? As a general rule, I would agree with that too.

For me, Ideology/agenda are the most important factors to consider in casting a vote. It just makes sense to consider a candidate's ideas about the proper role of government before placing him or her in that government. (The ability to lead and communicate are also important, because an unrealized ideology doesn't do anyone much good.)

Regards,

D-Ray