Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 8

message: I am trying to clear up some of the material on the Herschel Krustofsky list. People who revert these edits should have the courtesy of participating in the discussion on the list. Weed Harper 14:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Irresponsible edit warriors

message: Attention Weed Harper: We have already been through this argument several times with Herschelkrustofsky. King's book is the only published biography of LaRouche. Until someone writes a better one (and god knows why anyone would bother), he is the best source. His book was published by a reputable publisher. Until such time as he is shown to be an unreliable source, we are entitled to cite him. I remind you that Herschelkrustofsky asserted that King had forged his citation of the article in which LaRouche said that only 1.5 million Jews died during World War II. I located the LaRouche article proving that King was right and Herschelkrustofsky was wrong. So spare us further histrionics on this subject. Adam 23:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By eliminating large segments of your own theories and gratuitous attacks, you could make the article quite manageable. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dennis King

message: Just because someone has their own web page doesn't make them a source worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. I can see why you fellows kept them anonymous for so long. Weed is correct in making the point that if Ramsey Clark's opinion requires a lengthy disclaimer -- after all, he was only Attorney General and a recognized authority on the misuse of the criminal justice system for political purposes -- then there ought to be some discussion of the background, qualifications, and political biases of Dennis King, John Foster Berlet, Tim Wohlforth, Scott McLemee (who the hell is he?), and various disaffected members of Fred Newman's group.
I would suggest that the inclusion of such "sources" is just a disguised form of inserting your own POV. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Sources

message: This article is loaded with trivia from the 1970s, when LaRouche was pretty much an insignificant figure. He didn't develope any real influence until he was released from prison in the 90s, and the article doesn't cover that period. How useful is that?
---
:Actually, the limited electoral success of the LaRouche movement was in the 80s and ended with his imprisonment. He had some access as well with the Reagan administration but none to succeeding administrations. Saying that "he didn't develop any real influence until he was released from prison" is an inaccurate statement. As for "trivia" from the 1970s I suppose it might be convenient from LaRouche's standpoint not to  mention anything that happened prior to around 1980 (and indeed, his official biography on LaRouche sponsored websites pretty much ignores his days as a "leftist" and the transition to his current views) but this is not an official biography and his history is germane. By the way, in future please log in when you make edits. Making signficiant edits while not logged in is a violation of wikietiquette.  AndyL 21:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a log-in, and Wikipedia does not require me to have one -- it just says that it brings "many benefits." If you have a bone to pick with me, e-mail me at peter_abelard@ausi.com. Plus, it wasn't until the 90s that LaRouche was elected to the Universal Ecological Academy of Moscow (BTW, in Russia "ecological" doesn't mean a bunch of greenies), and made an honorary citizen of Sao Paolo.
LaRouche had more influence in the Clinton administration than with Reagan. You won't find it in the media, but it's true. You don't measure LaRouche's influence by electoral results -- you measure it by the spread of his ideas. It's not like professional sports with a scoreboard. And the most important development in the history of the LaRouche movement is the beginning of the LaRouche youth movement about four years ago. LaRouche never gets any real media coverage, he relies on face-to-face discussions and distribution of literature, and that is going on now on a much wider scale than ever before. The real history of the LaRouche movement is just beginning. --C Colden 04:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre Article

message: Herschel, LaRouche's explanation for giving courses in Marxist economics is from his autobiography. AndyL 02:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being?--Herschelkrustofsky 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: You seem to have confused "googling" with "research."--Herschelkrustofsky 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Free School courses

message: Hi. I have come over here from Wikipedia:Requests for Comment after someone posted there links to two old versions of this article and asked for votes of preference between the two. I don't see any reference to this request or to any voting here on this talk page, and the two versions have apparently been superseded by more recent versions. Is there any current interest in garnering outside voters for these two versions, or can the voting request be removed from the Requests for Comment page? --Gary D 08:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming over from Requests for Comment

message: I've been looking at these talk pages, and two things jump out at me. First, that the participants are mostly highly polarized pro- or anti-LaRouche, and second, that virtually every participant has encountered LaRouche activists first hand on the street.
LaRouche is a revolutionary, and everything he says is a challenge to the status quo, whether in politics, science, or art. The news media defend the status quo, and Wikipedia is part of the news media (it seems that you can put any opinion you like in a Wikipedia article as long as it has appeared in other media.) I doubt that any person has ever supported LaRouche based on media coverage -- they support LaRouche because they have read his pamphlets first hand.
My suggestion to Herschel and Weed is the following: why not stop making a fuss, and let Adam, Andy, 172 and Bcorr make the article just as outlandish and over-the-top as they like? People will compare it to LaRouche's literature, and see that it is completely fake, and get angry, and be more likely to support LaRouche. Don't you think that will serve your purpose better than if the article is a lukewarmish "consensus" article? --C Colden 04:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Chaim, you got yourself a log-on! And how's your Dad? 172.193.16.95 21:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: May I play the devil's advocate?

message: "From left to right" -- this is a characterization of LaRouche that was agreed upon by LaRouche's opponents, but has no basis in fact. LaRouche was a leftist in the 50s and 60s, and in the 70s he shifted to being an FDR-style Democrat. A few points of evidence: LaRouche actively supported debt moratoria for the Third World. "In August 1976, Fred Wills, then Foreign and Justice Minister of Guyana, and an ally of Lyndon LaRouche, brought up a resolution for a debt moratorium at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Colombo, Sri Lanka, reiterating his call before the UN General Assembly shortly thereafter." LaRouche made a similar campaign against the harsh austerity demands of New York City's creditor banks, which victimized the poor and minority communities of that city, and he advised Mexican President Lopez Portillo in 1982 to declare a debt moratorium (which was done). In the early '80s, LaRouche and his organization opposed the Reagan administration's decision to side with the U.K. in the Malvinas war, and opposed as well the Reagan policy of arming the Nicaraguan Contras. In 1984, LaRouche formed a close friendship and working relationship with Amelia Boynton Robinson, an important leader of the 1960s American Civil Rights Movement, who became Vice Chairman of the LaRouche-affiliated Schiller Institute. Similarly, LaRouche's 1988 candidacy featured, as his running mate, James Bevel.
:I'm having no trouble finding sources that accuse LaRouche of fascism, and suggest that he is far-right wing. It looks to me, particularly looking at the political philosophy page (And I'm speaking here of your preferred version, not  the Adam/Andy version) that LaRouche's precise classification along the political spectrum is yet another area of debate regarding him. Could the article perhaps be revised to reflect his changing positions in a way that does not use the "left/right" distinction at all, and then include a paragraph somewhere that describes the controversy on labeling him as left or right wing? Snowspinner 22:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
::There are several issues involved here. First, there is no question that LaRouche did change in the seventies, from being a quasi-Marxist to embracing the American System (economics). Adam and Andy have attempted to suppress any discussion of the American System angle, either reverting references to it, or disparaging it as a school of thought. An honest article is going to have to address it.
::Secondly, and I think that this is central to the controversy, there are essentially two versions of LaRouche's views: the one he espouses (and his writings are very prolific, leaving no doubt as to where he stands) -- and the the other being the characterization that was agreed upon back in the 80s by the John Train Salon, which version Adam and Andy assert is the correct one. This is a peculiar state of affairs, which the article should attempt to clarify for the reader. If your research on LaRouche consists of Googling the English language internet, any reference to LaRouche will tend to fall into one of these two irreconcilable categories. You might come away with the impression that there are actually two quite different political activists, both named Lyndon LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I imagine you will get exactly that phenomenon. The article, then, needs to reflect both of these LaRouches, and it needs to do it without value judgment on which portrayal is more accurate. Snowspinner 22:44, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I propose "Post-Marxist Policies" as a neutral title for this section, which is descriptive rather than trying to advance a dubious POV theory. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's look at more subtle indications of fascism: "Give me 1,000 more youth [leaders like these] and I'll take over the country" EIR.  His youth organizers are called LaRouche Youth.  His name is contained in nearly every article in every publication he owns.  You will not find this kind of charismatic leadership or adhesion to the ideas of one man to be a trait of many leftist organizations.--132.162.243.254 22:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: 132.162.243.254, do you remember Eugene McCarthy, back in 1968? His youth movement was a very similar phenomenon,in my opinion, and in his: see this interview. Weed Harper 04:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact One

message: "Although the expression "Eurasian Land-Bridge," for example, has been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, there is no evidence that LaRouche has ever had anything to do with this project." If the expression "Eurasian Land-bridge" has ever been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, it was certainly not by anyone connected to LaRouche. The Asian Highway is, as the name suggests, a highway. LaRouche's proposal involves primarily rail projects, with the emphasis on high-speed (and preferably mag-lev) rail, combined with other forms of infrastructure such as oil and natural gas pipelines, water management, and fiber-optic cables, to form what LaRouche calls "Development Corridors." LaRouche's proposal does not resemble, nor could it be responsibly confused with, any other.
:If you look in the talk archives you'll see that the "Eurasian Land-Bridge" question was discussed extensively. To be frank there is no independent evidence that such a project as described by the LaRouchites exists. Herschel produced a number of articles as evidence but they did not stand up to scrutiny. From time to time several LaRouche sources claim that hte "Eurasian Land-Bridge" is also known as the "New Silk Road". In fact, this is the nickname for the Asian Highway.Herschel is yet to respond to my detailed criticisms, I'll dig them up again if he wants to revive this issue.AndyL 20:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that LaRouche never made such a proposal? I have a 300 page report on his proposal that is about 12 years old, and I know of two conferences that were held, in Russia and Egypt, to discuss his proposal. I had to re-write the Eurasian Land-Bridge article because you deleted it, and according to Snowspinner, that is vandalism. I linked the article to reports on both conferences. Weed Harper 21:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Are you claiming that LaRouche never made such a proposal?
No. I'm saying that other than the Asian Highway (which was proposed in the 1950s) there is no independent evidence that this project exists. There is also a lot of evidence that the "New Silk Road" is the nickname of the Asian Highway. AndyL 22:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Fine -- don't call it a project, call it a proposal. But stop trying to confuse "Eurasian Land-Bridge" with the "Asian Highway"-- no one else confuses the two, and your attempt to equate them is deceitful. --Herschelkrustofsky 23:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Since you are fond of Googling, you may try "Eurasian Land-Bridge""Asian Highway"". Each reference in the Malaysian, Indian and Chinese press considers them as entirely separate and distinct proposals, with the Land-Bridge being the larger and more ambitious of the two. The only article that equates the two is, of course, your bogus Wikipedia article. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: That is indeed what the articles say. And if the Asian Highway would ultimately form part of the more ambitious Eurasian Land Bridge proposal, then your substituted article was incorrect and misleading by saying that the Eurasian Land Bridge was simply a different name for the Asian Highway. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Two

message: "LaRouche's supporters do not believe that he was imprisoned because of a criminal wrongdoing. Instead, they maintain that a vast, worldwide conspiracy framed him, and that this conspiracy has attempted to execute him at least three times." LaRouche's supporters do not maintain that a "vast, worldwide conspiracy" framed him; they maintain that it was a small and very specific group of people who framed him, which group includes the primary sources that Adam and Andy used for their version of the article . The frequent attempt to put words in LaRouche's mouth about various "conspiracies" is in fact an effort to support Adam's own "conspiracy theories" about LaRouche.
:Your link itself refers to "massive government-private  sector effort to "Get LaRouche."", which suggests that it is not a "small and very specific" group. That said, I suspect a more moderate wording could be agreed upon by both parties. As a first stab, I propose "Instead, they argue that a massive effort on the part of the US government and several private institutions existed to discredit and frame LaRouche." Thoughts? Snowspinner 22:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
::I think that the article should report that the meetings took place, name the participants, and let the reader draw his own conclusions. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I suspect I know the answer to this, would Adam, Andy, or someone else on the anti-LaRouche side like to tell me if it is universally agreed upon that these meetings took place? Snowspinner 14:51, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I suspect these "meetings" were actually interviews which the LaRouchites have twisted into some sort of conspiracyAndyL 20:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Four

message: Perhaps, Snowspinner, you have found that Herschel's list is in the archives and was answered point by point.  Weedharper and Herschel only contend that the challenges went unanswered, but this is a contention that they will make so long as your evaluation differs from their own.  I would be less than excited if these were to be revisited again, but its fine by me if it satisfies your own curiousity.  On the 5 points . . .
Point 1.) LaRouche is a Rightist (though radical and not conservative).  Left and Right have different meanings but primarily refer to the C.A of late 18th Century France.  That LaRouche is a rightist can be easily traced to his reading of Plato's Republic and other dialogues, in which LaRouche agrees with Plato's version of Socrates that a leader of men is to men what a horse trainer is to horses, and that a leader of men is just by virtue of the fact that he is the leader of men.  As a horse trainer trains, and not mis-trains horses (or he is not acting in his role as a horse-trainer)a leader leads and not mis-leads men.  There can be no bad leader of men as when an error is committed, he is not acting in his capacity as a leader.  Now, it is a matter of fact, of the agreed upon historical record, that LaRouche, as Lyn Marcus, was a radical left-Communist of the Cannonite-Trotskyist variety.  This would have made him a leftist.  LaRouche and LaRouche's followers today state clearly that they are NOT leftists or on the left.  They claim to be 'above' or 'beyond' mere 'false' categories of left and right.  As rightists, monarchists in this historical case, they support the French Crown against the French Revolution, hardly a position of the political left who hold the French revolution as something of a victory (though short lived) of democracy and left forces and ideals.  They reject the category of left and right as a synarchist construct of the French Revolution and the British Bankers and money changers (mostly Jews like the Rothschilds, Gugenheims)who conspired against the French Crown for British plunder.  So they reject the term 'right' as it is just a syncharcist construct and inversion of 'left' from the French Revolution which they staunchly oppose (from the monarchist perspective).  
The Argentine British conflict over the Falkans exposes the rightist and Imperial ambitions/justifications of LaRouche on international affairs.  They oppose the British on the grounds that Britain has been taken over by wealthy families of International Bankers with direct ties to Satanic cabals and secretive Masonic tyrants.  See esoteric.  They oppose Britain on this issue on the basis of the Monroe Doctrine, hardly a leftist doctrine, which holds that Latin America is the U.Ss backyard and turf, an extension of Manifest Destiny, and that investment and development opportunities are the sole domain of U.S productive firms.  The philosophical underpinnings and structural historical form of the LaRouche movement IMO is more analogous to National Socialism and Fascism, which also claimed to be beyond of outside of the realm of left and right.  Like Mussolini, LaRouche left the socialist groupings and ideological framework of the left which he had developed from, and began to advocate a mish-mash of left-right policies, but based upon the right insofar as their being a mass-populist movement which is controlled and lead by a hierarchical structure which is supported by and advocates the so-called salvation of the Industrialist class (capitalists)and landowners as against the alleged social corruption by the International Banking class (userers, financiers)against the interests of the modern Nation State, as explicated in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, whose interest claims to be the general public weal of a particular nation state.  See nationalism.  Of course, LaRouche's rightism can also be deduced and reasoned from his opposition to the schools of physical and cultural anthropology and sociology.  LaRouche supports teaching that God created everything, and that humans and apes could not have developed from a common ancestor.
Point 2.) There was some confusion on this discussion about the so-called Eurasian Landbridge and the Asian Highway.  The Asian Highway is an actual project being undertaken and built by the nations involved.  The Eurasian Landbridge is nothing more than a proposal put forward by LaRouche which follows a similar geography.  That there is an Asian Highway being built is used by LaRouchians as proof that LaRouche's ideas are "everywhere" being put into practice.  Thus LaRouchians in conversational 'dialogues' with people, the Asian Highway can be used through inductive or Platonic reasoning to conclude that the Eurasian Landbridge is an idea that world leaders agree with LaRouche about since they are building the Asian Highway.  In fact, there is no evidence that the Asian Highway is being built directly or indirectly on LaRouche's 'advice' that there be a Eurasian Landbridge built.
Point 3.) You will find no references in 1977 by LaRouche, and not until the Reagan administration itself came out with the SDI proposal, of any technology or proposal that specifically called for the use of missiles or lasers or satelites, or generally called for a technology which would minimize or eliminate the destructive capacity of a Soviet first strike.  We cannot find proof that LaRouche did 'not' claim or propose something like the SDI prior to the 1981-83 period since we cannot 'find' something which is 'not there'.  
Point 4.) This is meaningless nonsense.  Of course LaRouche named who 'framed' him in numerous articles and texts, and this sense, it was a small group of people.  But in numerous other texts, these same people are included as part of or dupes of a Synarchist International Satanic Banking Cabal.  
Point 5.) If there is substantial evidence that LaRouche had a nervous breakdown, then it should be included.  If not, then not.  I realize that a theory of how LaRouche arrived at his present world view can be developed from possible evidence of his nervous breakdown (since Mussolini had a similar nervous breakdown around WWI and formed the journal 'Utopia' which stripped him down to only his Ego and his power to will), but it is not necessarily telling of anything.
Let me add something else to this discussion.  LaRouche's theories, comments, analysis, writings etc., are nowhere held to the same scrutiny within the LaRouche produced propaganda as criticisms of it are on this forum.  Therefor, those attempting to compose an accurate account of LaRouche are at a disadvantage when compared to the mass of unsubstantiated LaRouchite claims (like that he invented SDI, for instance)that have to be sifted through. --Capone 23:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand my efforts here. I am not interested in coming to some kind of absolute knowledge of truth here. That would be original research. If there are things in the article which are easily proven false, and which no one can provide any evidence in favor of, they should be cut. Largely, though, I expect the middle ground that will be reached on these points is that both sides will compromise on a version that includes both points of view instead of trying to make the move towards some absolute truth on a controversial issue, which is doomed to be a POV endeavor. Snowspinner 23:23, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I did not even think to assume what your efforts were or weren't here.  Common sense could tell you that nothing that I wrote is the product of original research other than when I wrote later the part 'IMO'.  All of my comments were intended for the discussion and weren't in any way meant as a proposal for what should be written on the page.  Absolute truth isn't the aim of this or any other article, but the hope is that certain truths can be found within it.  You proposed a revisiting of Herchel's list which we agree is largely unsourced.  I was presenting one of the angles for the view you keep finding on search engines.  The five points were responded to by someone who gave five arguments which were easily proven false, so I'd rather bring this here now before those arguments get incorporated into the article, by then which I would have to be in favor of them being cut on the basis they were easily proven false.  An NPOV way of writing the article would be simply to include reasonable pro-LaRouche rebutals to those statements that were generally agreed on by independant analysts or biographers on LaRouche.  A proviso of these rebutals is that they be easily verifable so as to not engender the necessity of an obvious rebutal to that rebutal ad infinitum. --Capone 01:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Herschel's List Again?

message: I think the image that was replaced should be added back, BUT it should be placed in the article with the new pic. WhisperToMe 05:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I think the number of links is excessive. Weed Harper 06:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That was unintentional. Weed Harper 00:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Weed also removed a lot of LaRouche site links, so I don't think he was being unfair. Note that the Temple of the Screaming Electron (TOTSE) site that you linked is just a reprint from the Chip Berlet sites. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: *John Mintz of the Washington Post Mintz wrote many articles, echoing the basic format of the John Train Salon.
*PRA/PublicEye/Chip Berlet John Foster "Chip" Berlet has been the most prolific anti-LaRouche writer, active primarily on the internet. He is closely associated with Dennis King.
*Rick Ross Rick Ross is a self-styled cult expert and deprogrammer who has been an outspoken opponent of the LaRouche organization.
Interesting that you would remove all the "Criticisms by former colleagues" despite the fact that they are not subpages of other sites already listed. AndyL 13:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That was unintentional. Weed Harper 00:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Weed also removed a lot of LaRouche site links, so I don't think he was being unfair. Note that the Temple of the Screaming Electron (TOTSE) site that you linked is just a reprint from the Chip Berlet sites. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics of LaRouche

message: While I suspect I agree with some of your objections to the many changes made by Weed Harper, I'm curious why you reverted everything. Attribution of specific sources instead of "some people," for instance, seems to me a very good change. Similarly, removing two paragraphs that could have easily been NPOVed doesn't really make sense to me.
:I think that this page is highly relevant: Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources --Herschelkrustofsky 20:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I suspect that both sides are not going to draft versions remotely acceptable to the other, and that the way out is through a collaborative effort. That is, I think more will get done if both sides work on the other side's additions. It's just that, well, I think instead of reverting the other side's additions, you should NPOV the language and add rebuttal information. Snowspinner 17:20, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
I think the only way to have a collaborative effort is to do it on a draft page. Otherwise we just have a war of attrition. AndyL 18:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: It would appear to be a rather one-sided war, because as far as I can see, both Weed and myself are cooperating fully with Snowspinner's mediation efforts. I think that most people would see it as a sign of maturity if you and Adam would do the same. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: User:Adam Carr has a picture of himself reading some LaRouche-related paper on his talk page.
I was wondering if we could NPOV the caption and place it in a LaRouche-related article. Maybe something like: "A picture of a man reading a paper written by Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche's political views are widely debated between people." WhisperToMe 20:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should that be necessary? I'd like to have out in the open. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum (barring talk about Wikipedia) - See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not a ground for advocacy groups/people. WhisperToMe 22:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: An NPOV caption for this picture

message: I would be up for protecting this article and moving edits to a draft page if people want to. I think, though, that the draft page should have some ground rules in place. The one I'd like, personally, is an understanding that there will be no reverting. I am sure that this will lead to some difficult situations, when people make edits that other people think are really bad, but I think it's important, in this situation, to handle this through means other than reverts. Snowspinner 02:49, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Why not handle the regular article(s) through means other than reverts? They are both considerably closer to some sort of NPOV standard, than they were before you began mediating. Perhaps you and WhisperToMe might elaborate on the benefits of the draft page approach. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft page

message: At the end of the first paragraph, it states that LaRouche has never garnered significant electoral support.  I think the term 'significant' is POV since people both for and against LaRouche could consider any support as significant of something.  Instead, I would like to propose that this word be replaced with an actual figure, and let readers decide for themselves how significant (or even what it signifies) this number is.  If there isn't a good number that can be found, then I would recommend that this part of the sentence simply be axed.  Thanks for the feedback in advance. -Capone 23:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV In First Paragraph

message: For folks that have an appetite for really overheated slanders of LHL, there will be one one week from today in the Washington Post. The rumor has it that it is being run at the personal request of Cheney, and it will be delirious enough to make even Berlet look kinda sedate. --172.194.10.72 13:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Heads up