Should La Rouche supporters be allowed to post at DU?

[AntiCoup2K4]

Lyndon La Rouche is a registered Democrat. He often appears on the ballot in many states as a Democratic candidate, and likewise, his followers say they are Democrats.

Should their voices be welcomed in the Democratic party, and here at DU?

Why, or why not?

[Systematic Chaos]

1. I don't know a lot about him

And when I do read opinions here, most people say he's weird. But, it doesn't bother me whether or not people discuss him here. I'm sure there's something in his set of beliefs that's valid.

[genius]

54. His followers are liberal Democrats who backed Kerry

I've never seen the guy, but I've read some of the handouts his people have distributed.

His people are opposed to free trade, opposed to the death penalty, and opposed to the war in Iraq. He and his supporters can't stand Bush. Despite being a liberal Democrat, he really liked Bill Clinton. Many of the LaRouche supporters I've met are into the MIHOP theory of 9/11. I don't know if this is also his position or just that of his supporters. His people don't expect him to become President. He apparently runs for President so he can have a platform to discuss the issues.

His positions have been mis-portrayed. His people claim he was framed because he believed that the right wing was up to no good.

A number of Jewish people agree with his positions on Israel, so the anti-Semite stuff is a lie. I met the daughter of the guy who co-founded the movement with him at a couple of rallies, and I'm pretty sure she's Jewish.

He believed that Kucinich was the best of the nine candidates and agreed pretty much with Dennis's positions on most issues. When Kerry got the nomination, he got his people working on the Kerry campaign.

His people are not crazies or bigots. Just the opposite. Some of them are part of the Democratic Party, and they regularly vote to support liberal resolutions.

I saw what the Democrats, who are afraid of Dennis Kucinich, did to try to portray Dennis as a leftist during the last election, and portraying liberals as extremists are part of SOP. Because of that, I wouldn't be surprised if conservative Dems hadn't worked with the Republicans to frame LaRouche, as his people claim. I'm sure they would do it to all liberals if they got the chance.

[ISUGRADIA]

60. I'm sorry you think a supporter of gay bashing and quarantining

people with AIDS belongs in the Democratic Party. I do not.

[Sean Reynolds]

2. No. Fascism has no place here at DU.

[genius]

55. Then maybe the fascist labelers should leave.

I want to keep the liberals here.

[Sean Reynolds]

67. He isn't a liberal.

And I don't care what anyone says. I've researched the man to know that he's filled with nothing but hate.

[LincolnMcGrath]

3. Why not? We allow Pro-DLC Threads!

:hide: :yoiks:

[msongs]

37. and anti-DLC threads :-) n/t

[Old Mouse]

4. They should be urged to do their own research

I still remember his racist, survivalist rants before he was locked up. His current followers, ignorant of his pre-jail politics, should spend a little time in a library.

La Rouche is no Democrat.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. just look up some of the things Lyndon La Rouche believes

to call him an extremist nut...would be an understatement..to call his organization a cult is to put it mildly

Here is an article from Washington Post (also note the links to a number of other articles on La Rouche on the right of the page):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm

[fujiyama]

6. LaRouche is a complete nutcase

If we allow his supporters, we may as well allow David Icke's supporters.

LaRouche is antisemitic, homophobic, a convicted criminal (served time for tax fraud) and all in all, a completely freak.

[ThoughtCriminal]

7. I doubt most of the posters are supporters

They've come across or been sent a link to an article and are unaware of who's really behind it and repost the link here.

[lala_rawraw]

8. I support free speech, so I think everyone should post at DU

but that is my op.

[Domitan]

20. Amen!

and I still think that our reasonable left voices will remain strong regardless.

[zanne]

22. Have you never seen message b oards taken over by RW'ers?

We don't allow right-wing, Bush-supporting Republicans on this board because we want to have a dialogue with like-minded people. There are plenty of places to go on the internet if you want to argue with Republicans. DU is a refuge for those of us who are bombarded every day with the right-wing media. I don't approve of anyone besides true liberals from posting here. Lately, there have been alot of Libertarians posting, demanding we respect their views. Since the Libertarian party consists of everything from the far-right to liberals, their views are often conservative and divisive. I don't approve of that either. Let's keep DU liberal. PLEASE!!!!!

[lala_rawraw]

29. that is why you can have a little ignore

button that would allow you, and others, to ignore them... they can speak to a black hole. but a blanket entry rule set is a bit concerning. plus, they might learn something while here where as if they are not allowed, they will simply be tuning back into the echo chamber.

[Selatius]

49. self-edit

[NVMojo]

70. I agree, thanks for saying, Lala ...

[lvx35]

9. Should scientologists post here?

They are a cult, LaRouche is a cult. But so long as they are not spreading cult propaganda, Its not a bad thing for them to post here. I think it would be good for them, in fact.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. Do the scientologists call themselves Democrats?

:shrug:

[rman]

14. Do freepers call themselves democrats?

Many do when they post on DU.

Can people lie about their political inclination?

You bet.

So why not scientologists?

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. Perhaps, but I'm not sure if I've heard a scientologist make a political..

..argument. Come to think of it, last Tom Cruise interview I read, he waanted to avoid politics. It was in Rolling Stone about a year ago, so they were asking him typical election year questions.

Now I'd discuss politics or whatever else with Lisa Marie Presley, but that's getting too far off topic here. This is about the La Rouchies, not the L Ronnies.

[rman]

17. What if a scientologist pretends to be a dem?

[NoPasaran]

19. Are you saying a scientologist can't be a dem?

Last time I checked, Scientology was a religion, not a political philosophy>

[rman]

21. I'm saying a scientologist can pretend to be a dem

even when he doesn't ascribe to dem political views.

Kindof like what freepers sometimes do on DU.

[lvx35]

16. Good point.

Personally I can't stand LaRouchies. Last time I tried to debate with one there was a lot of cussing at each other until I walked away from their booth. But the question was about LaRouche people themselves, which I think should be allowed...In a nutshell, I think DU should ban posts which advocate LaRouche, but not literally ban LaRouche fans. That way they could get invovled in some more sane discourse, which as I said would help em.

[lala_rawraw]

33. I cannot stand many people and groups, but if we

Humans are to survive, we have to somehow find a way to work together, despite the cults that one or several groups belong to. I see the followers of televangelists as members of a cult, abused mentally, sometimes physically, and certainly financially. I see no difference between the followers of Dobson and the followers of Moon... oh wait, one in the same;)

[AntiCoup2K4]

35. Dobson followers also follow Moon?

Never would have thought of that before :)

[salin]

38. anyone can call themselves a democrat

heck bob novak used to.

even aside from the cultishness surrounding larouche - what he stands for is not aligned with the democratic party. Just because he appropriates the lable for himself, does not make it such that we all have to embrace him and those who push his materials.

[lala_rawraw]

30. You know, many would argue that Christianity is a cult

So I don't think it is fair to give one group view credence because their cult has survived for a thousand years ONLY because the majority of that time, their religious leaders were the leaders of the empire.

Just MHO

[NAO]

10. I think Lyndon La Rouche is actually LLR JR. - son of LLR.

I think he is more conventional than his father was. I've read some of the papers on his site, and he makes quite a bit of sense. Regardless, I think we should welcome diverse viewpoints here.

[DURHAM D]

11. Not here - read the rules. Go elsewhere. eom

[unlawflcombatnt]

13. What are his positions? What does he stand for?

I just spent 1/2 an hour looking at 2 of his sites. I have no idea what he's talking about, much less what his positions are on any issues. His writings seem to be a cross between philosophy and schizophrenia.

I've talked to a few schizophrenics, and LaRouche's writings give me the same impression as talking to a schizophrenic -- a lot of words, and little content.

[Brightmore]

18. LaRouche is an anti-Semitic fascist

Just because he calls himself a Democrat, doesn't mean he really is one. Just like Fred Phelps and Zell Miller. All three are real DINOs.

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. Are you saying that some people who advertise themselves as Democrats.....

....are actually NOT Democrats?

If so, how do you determine whether someone really is, or is not?

[salin]

39. when they take positions like the forced quarantine of folks with HIV

or when they commit wire fraud to keep tapping into one time donors bank accounts without permission... maybe then ??

[AntiCoup2K4]

44. So in other words, you don't consider La Rouchies to be Democrats...

....because their stated positions directly contradict progressive Democratic values? Is that a correct interpretation?

[salin]

45. I consider them to be something unique to themselves.

They do not strike me as a political faction within a party - any party. They are their own distinct entity. Yes their issues are often oppositional to moderate and progressive democratic values, but it is more than that. It is the nature of their organization and their practices combined with some of their positions that make me greatly skeptical of their motives - with LaRouchites, in the end, it is all about LaRouche - and I don't think the LaRouche version of America is much more living friendly than the talibornigan version of America - albiet for very different reasons.

[AntiCoup2K4]

46. Very well stated.

It is the nature of their organization and their practices combined with some of their positions that make me greatly skeptical of their motives

I couldn't agree more :)

[salin]

47. I suddenly have the feeling

that I walked into the middle of a very different sort of back and forth... and a point to be made... that has little to do with LaRouche. Am I onto something ? ;-)

[bemildred]

23. No, of course not. Weak minds could be damaged.

We must all be protected from dangerous ideas for our own good.

[seemslikeadream]

24. Are you really asking if EIR should be used as a link here?

DO THE MATH

THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A MILITARY ORDER
http://www.bushflash.com/buddy.html

[robbedvoter]

25. Lots of nuts post here. It's eventually the content of the posts rather

than the particular obsession that keeps them or gets them banned rather than the object of their loyalty. As it should be.

[blondeatlast]

27. I was trying to put similar thoughts into words, but you did it beautifull

It's the content, not the packaging, that DU needs to watch out for.

(Hey, that wasn't bad on my part, either!)

[LoZoccolo]

26. So let me get this right...

...members of an organization whose number includes scores of our elected officials who enjoy good approval ratings among their constituency should get kicked out of the party, but cult members who follow someone who went to jail for ripping people off should be allowed to try to recruit here.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

31. hey, I don't always get along with the OP, but that remark is uncalled for

Many are former donors who are waiting for the extra cash to do so again, and many more have to choose to put gas in the car and food on the table over donating at this time.

[blondeatlast]

62. Of course. It's not about the individual, it's about the content.

There may be any number of reasons someone doesn't donate.

The beuaty of it is they can speak their minds anyway, as long as they follow the very clear rules of DU.

I find the question you asked deplorable, actually, and see no correlation to the OP's question, anyway.

[wyldwolf]

34. of course

Until they break a rule.

[spaniard]

36. Should far left types be allowed to post at DU?

They say they are democrats. But they continually call for party purges, often advocate third parties, and stray from the spirit of DU rules like, "People... who generally engage in rude, anti-social behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a fellow progressive, a long-term member of this community, or a donor."

[salin]

41. equating la rouche

to the left wing of the left wing of the party? look, locally I saw moderate elected officials who always called on the left to support whoever won the primary... until one year so-called "green democrats" won - and these moderates supported the republican candidates - going so far as to attend their fundraisers. Point being both the center and the left wing do this (sadly) from time to time. But that has nothing to do with LaRouche.

I will never forget the regular "protests" (about five people) on the stairs of the House office buildings, by larouchites, who were calling on the forced quarantine of all people with HIV. LaRouche even tried to get a state ballot passed along those lines.

I don't think either real camp within the party (moderate or left) should be equated on any level with LaRouche.

[LoZoccolo]

53. Good answer. n/t

[democracyindanger]

58. Dumb post. nt

[leesa]

40. Of course! Why not?

[salin]

42. two things:

one the history of "recruitment" which is far stronger than simply advocating a set of positions - this is what the LaRouche folks do... they try to identify specific types - and go after them to recruit them into the organization. That doesn't seem appropriate at DU - esp given the cultish aspect of the LaRouche organization.

two - many positions held by LaRouche are rather troubling ... eg in the eighties (and into the early nineties - perhaps even still) they pushed for forced quarantine of folks with HIV - even going so far as to try to push for a related state ballot initiative. Their more fascist, antisemtic and just insane stuff usually is superficially cloaked - but a little scratching and there are all sorts of positions that are rather discomforting.

[salin]

43. a little bit about LaRouche

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc1.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1340385,00.html


http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/042696/schiller042696.html scroll down to read about the aids initiative in california (forced quarantines)

http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/05/13/40a31aaa061fd?in_archive=1

quote from student dropout (went to school in wash - where theSchiller Institute was established (recruitment) ...
"Larouche is the only (candidate) that is qualified to be our president right now," says Larouche supporter Peter Martinson. A former Astronomy major at the University of Washington in Seattle, 26-year-old Martinson dropped out of school to join the LaRouche movement full time.

"I'm not going to school with this educational system," said Martinson. However, he does intend to be part of LaRouche's plan to colonize mars after LaRouche comes in to power.

[unlawflcombatnt]

65. Thanks for the links

I think the 4th link is the most useful. It's still very unclear what he actually stands for, or what his positions are.

I still think the #1 adjective I'd use to describe him is "schizophrenic." He uses a lot of words to say very little. And that little is very difficult to understand.

Apparently he is a conspiracy theory advocate. He thinks banking interests are malfeasant.

The difficulty in difficulty in determining his views may be because they change with the time of day.

[Pepperbelly]

74. Thank you so much for that link to public eye ...

I read as long as I could stand it ... up to the party where Larouche followers began 'deprogramming' those who tried to leave Larouche. What a mutant!

[TankLV]

48. How do you know they are not already?

LaRouche is the epitome of a cult. I used to hang around them when I was in college.

Crisis after crisis.

He is true nutcase.

I would steer as far away from him as possible.

[Selatius]

50. I believe in freedom of speech.

I may disagree with a person's words. They may be disagreeable or even disgusting to my sensibilities, but I would defend vehemently his very right to say it, but I would also challenge the content of his message.

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. Well, I'm allowed to post here....

[TriMetFan]

52. The difference between us The Democrats and those republicans is....

We Democrats have a big tent to welcome any body with a difference of opinion in politics.

[Nothing Without Hope]

56. Why not? Of course they should be allowed to post.

If they or anyone else posts something that needs some factual backup, there will be replies asking for it. If facts are supplied, then knowledge is spread. If insufficient facts are supplied, then the post will sink on its merits or lack of them. That's the normal process at DU.

[StudentOfDarrow]

57. Anyone should be allowed to post on DU.

As long as they act reasonably. Freedom of speech. If you want to ignore them, that is your personal right.

[ISUGRADIA]

59. He's a cult leader and a promoter of gay bashing

but if people abide by the rules let them post. They are not real Democrats though. Oh, in most states it don't take jack to get on a ballot.

""They're already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They'll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they're beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up-which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It's a matter of children's civil rights!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/

look under Lyndon LaRouche and his record on gays and lesbians

[LittleClarkie]

61. As long as they are not abusive

and don't work against us, they can say whatever batshit crazy thing they want. And as long as we are civil, we should be able to refute them at will.

I'm not big about censoring the marketplace of ideas. People are big enough around here to figure out for themselves what they think about LaRouche. Or they should be anyway.

Yes, I say, unless they become disruptive. But that will be more of an individual basis, I reckon.

[tritsofme]

63. Don't you mean member of his cult?

I didn't think he had supporters...

[AntiCoup2K4]

64. Well, he has enough support to get on the ballot in a number of states.

That number probably varies from state to state, but he manages to pull it off every election year.

[europegirl4jfk]

66. LaRouche is NOT a politician, he is a cult leader!

And his movement isn't even a real political cult. He uses politics only to attract young people who are opposed to the government. He challenges whoever is in power, from the right to the left, and takes the opposite position to get the support of those unsatisfied with their leaders. His whole political talk is just a trap to lure people in the movement, kids he can then use and abuse to get money out of them.

[reprehensor]

68. Aw, c'mon!

Well...

Ok.

Love My Demagogue: A Chance Encounter With the Lyndon Larouche Network

Maybe you have a point.

;)

[europegirl4jfk]

71. Yeah, that's exactly how the LaRouche people work

I'm following this movement since a few years because I have a friend who unfortunately got involved with them. Those who want to know more about LaRouche should read the FactNet message board. It's really eye-opening!
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/358.html?1099441306

[NVMojo]

69. yes.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

72. I used to see a few post here all the time.

[TheDonkey]

73. No, they are not Democrats. Don't participate in the formal system

they are bombastic and offensive driftwood who claim to be Democrats but they are not. They do not care to participate in the formal system, they'd much rather just shout obsenities in a town hall or heckle people on subways.

[Moderator]

75. Locking

Questions on DU policy should be directed to the administrators.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html