I agree with LaRouche for the most part..I reject his ideas about Roosevelt being a good guy.. Hell he involved us in WWII so that his banking buddies at the FED could loan us suckers some money to finance the war..
I like LaRouche.. other than that.
You better take a closer look at LaRouche. While I agree that he does bring up some good points, he is still way, way, way off the mark on a lot of the more important topics he brings up. Those that I addressed in the previous post are so blatently obvious that anyone should be able to spot them. I've not really paid LaRouche much attention, even though I remember hearing about him when I really started getting interested in politics in the early to mid 70's. I do know that virtually everyone considered him to be slightly off his rocker, and by virtually everyone I mean I mean real conservatives (not the neo-cons, or as I prefer to call them pseudo-cons), real classical liberals (now refered to as libertarians) and the contemporary liberal (a socialist in everything but name).
After reading that interview with him, I now know why so many, from so many disparate points of view would consider him to be off his rocker. In that interview, he attempts to adopt ideas that would appeal to every political point of view, and still appear to be outside the political mainstream. This leads me to believe that he is either a complete nut case, or a political opportunist hoping to grab disgruntled voters from all across the political spectrum, which would make him a very dangerous man if he ever were elected. Someone that tries to appeal to everyone, in order to obtain enough votes to gain office, has no principles, and is therefore very dangerous. The current occupiant of the imperial residence in Washington town is a good example of just such a man, even though his strategy for gaining the imperial residence was slightly different, and unfortunatly more successful.