Rue

You can spin all you want that Jews are invaders to Israel but they are no more invaders then the huge influx of Arabs who came in thanks to British immigration policies that deliberately flooded the area today known as Israel, the West Bank and Jordan while severely preventing Jewish immigration to try prevent a Jewish state. That historic fact can't be revised and the practical reality is most people in Israel and the West Bank today are what? In Israel they come from Russia, Ethiopia, North America, South America, India and Africa. For Palestinians most are Arabs who came looking for work and still come looking for work. You can revise history all you want the practical reality is in this region you have 2 people who have no choice as to where they live. The arm chair geniuses on this forum will not resolve the conflict nor will the revisionism change the predicament. The solution requires a recognition of both peoples rights simultaneously. Problem right now is Abbas has said he will never recognize Israel as a JEWISH state and Hamas has a charter calling for its complete elimination with force. You can talk all you want but until Abbas and Hamas come to their senses nothing changes. The average Palestinian wants a job, water and access through Israel to travel to see relatives or access on the West Bank free of check points. That is elementary but seems so far away as long as terrorism continues and no one listens to the average Palestinian who wants to be left alone to work. As for Israelis, their existence will always depend on themselves. They can rely on no one but themselves. That history has rudely taught them.

Right. You stated Palestinians governed themselves. They did not. The Turks when they were the Ottoman empire ruled at a distance. The British then came in and used their League mandate to govern. The British not the Palestinians ruled. You revised history. You are challenged on the point and you have not been able to show Palestinians had their own country or ruled themselves. That was the point. You have no different interpretation of that specific period than I do.

More interesting revisionism. How about you do some research and find out how many non Jewish people living in what is today pre-1967 Israel were "displaced" compared to the number of Jews removed from Arab countries and forced to flee to Israel. Then when you have done that then figure out how many holocaust refugees came to Israel and how many Jews were already there contonuously since ancient days. Instead of flipping off as if you know the history research it. General consensus is that from the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left Muslim countries. That does not include displaced Jews from Europe or who fled other countries. Youy inter-change the two as if they are the same number and you ignore the property loss not just the displacement of Jews. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12287 http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/jewish-refugees-lost-50-percent-more.html what happened to the Jews from Europe after the holocaust: http://holocaust-history.org/short-essays/what-happened.shtml Generally speaking its estimated after 1948, 140,000 Jewish refugees from the holocaust came to Israel and about 400,000 to the US. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005139 What we Jews know and you don't clearly, is that after World War Two, no countries would take in jewish refugees except the U.S. Some got into Canada, France and Britain because they had relatives there. Some had gone to Argentina, Mexico, and Cuba by paying their way in at the beginning of the holocaust when they got out. Switzerland took in about 20,000. Canada deported any Jews that tried to enter Canada after WW2. My mother was one of them. Even though she was a doctor in a field of specialty badly needed and had a position waiting for her at a hospital and university in Montreal, they tried to deport her in 1952. Had my father not been a war vet and been able to use his war vet connections to have a friend who was the son of a Senator pass a private bill, she would have been deported to Poland a country she never grew up in. So when you or anyone else speak of Jews going where they did not belong let me tell you this-those that went to Israel had no choice. They were lucky it existed and if it was not for elenor Roosevelt taking on the West these refugees had no countries to live in. To this day the Arab world says-its not our problem-Europe dumped its Jews on us. They dumped Jews? The Jews had to fight to get in then fight when they got in and to this day keep fighting precisely because people like you and they do not care for what happened to us in your world or their world and guess what- the Israelis you see have the same rights as anyone who began referring to themselves as a Palestinian as of 1967 when Arafat first coined that phrase. Until then he refused to call Palestinians just that and found the word distasteful. It was only when he failed to take over Jordan in a bloody attempt on King Hussein he suddenly began referring to himself as leader of Palestinians. Today's Palestinians consist of who exactly? Most are descended from Arabs who are not Palestinians who moved to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and displaced actual Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Today anyone as long as they are not Jewish can call themselves a Palestinian. The requirement is wide open. The UN has created a special definition that only applies to Palestinians and says their next generations. Any other refugee including Jewish ones, are only refugees if they themselves flee war, not their children or children's children as is the case with "Palestinians". The term "Palestinian" is an opportunistic political one created in 1967 by Arafat to try create a kingdom for himself. He could care less about Palestinians. For years he hijacked their money sent to them for food and placed it in his Swiss and French bank accounts and under the protection of France's Deuxieme Bureau ran heroin and hash-hish through Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza to Marseilles, France and then on to the U.S. In return he served as a broker introducing French businessmen to Arab businesses. The French who helped build Israel's nuclear reactor switched deciding they would make more money with Arab nations and along with Britain and Germany sold mustard and nerve gas to Iraq and weapons to all kinds of Arab countries no different than China, the Us and Russia. Europe's permanent security council members are also the largest manufacturers of weapons and all are nuclear powers and all are dependent on the Middle east for oil. You want to spin your revisionism and pretend Palestinians today are displaced refugees by evil Jews who had the nerve to want a country be my guest.

In which world. Prior to the creation of the state of Israel in 1949 Palestinians had no government where they ruled themselves. How many times do you want to repeat this-it doesn't make it a fact just evidence of your attempts to revise history.

You criticize Peeves for an alleged convenient arguement he pulls out of thin air, then you engage in the very same thing you claim he is engaged in. That's what I like about your responses.. You are always consistent in contradicting yourself.

brilliant reasoning. as long as rob ford spends taxpayer's money on himself its o.k. there is no conflict of interest. brilliant. kyle rae suffs his face with $12,000 no problem, no conflict. Rob Ford spends $3,000 to pay to equip football players who can not afford it-oooh suddenly there is a conflict. oh come on now-its so easy to see-stuff your fact face, good, help others who need it, bad. Now imagine had Kyle Rae taken the $12,000 of taxpayer's money he wasted stuffing his fat face and donated it to the food bank. Oh well. Very bad. Conflict of interest. Bad. Bad. We would have had to get Clayton Ruby after him. What a crock. What an absolute crock of hippocracy and double standard. What a joke. A right wing slob gives money to the poor, and the same socialist champions of the poor who stuff their fact righteous faces on canopes, become outraged. Right. Let them eat cake right Doggy Doo? Let them eat cake. Reality bites once again. In your world, those that think and smell like you get one standard, the rest another. Right.

You again as usual missed the point. Here I will go even slower... the vote did not, can not and never created a conflict of interest-there was none..there was no personal benefit to Ford...his activity did not benefit himnself, it benefitted the children who could not afford football equipment. The vote has nothing to do with the creation of whether there was a personal benefit. On the other hand there is no vote needed to determine and understand that Kyle Raye stuffed his fat selfish face with taxpayers money. If Kyle had asked his constituents to vote on whether they wanted that $12,000 going to projects in their ward or Kyle's fact face what do you think they would have voted for? Hmmmm? What there was no conflict because no one voted? Right. Are you really that thick? Do you think anyone in this city other than you and your trio of righteous geniuses find raising money for a football team immoral or a conflict? Does your pee brain deny this or what? Do you think the vote is the moral criteria to use to determine a conflict? In fact that vote you now suddenly trot out and the legal arguements Rubty threw out are the lame excuses for trying to reframe an impeachment from office of Ford. Talk about lame excuses to impeach someone. Go on you are suddenly a champion of voting, lets hold a referendum right now and see just how many Torontonians would vote to throw Ford out. You know damn well no one would. Your voting pretense is lame. As lame as it gets. By the way are you as stupid as you claim Ford is? I ask that because the issue is not whether Ford is stupid-its whether he used his office to personally benefit for himself. He did not. That was never the issue but it summarizes where your head is at-this pathetic presumption that the people who voted Ford in are all stupid because unlike you they support what Ford did, does and could care less he used his stationery to aid a football team. You won't get it because to do so would admit you are elitist, a presumptious snot who thinks he can use this issue to pronounce yourself and your tee hee giggle group intellectually superior to Ford and those stupdid shmucks that voted him in all unworthy of being allowed him as their mayor. Democracy? Hah. Not in your world. We impeach people because of semantics and the twisting of a rule to mean something it was never intended to mean. In your world a politician who uses his office stationery to aid a charity he works for needs to be impeached but some fat Marie Antoinette socialist elitist who shoves $12,000 of canopes down his throat did nothing wrong.

e Buddy Boy explain why this essay is wrong: http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

Here you can ask Buddy Boy for a synopsis of the following: http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/titledetails.asp?tid=73 Buddy Boy can explain the archives of the British Mandate.

Oh wait Bud needs a citation to call a Zionist lie for my comments above. Here it is: http://rslissak.com/content/arab-muslim-waves-immigration-palestine-land-israel-drrivka-shpak-lissak

If one goes to the 1525/6 Ottoman census which was said to have been conducted 8 years after the Mamluk defeat in 1516, the population west to the Jordan valley was reported to be 120,000. Mopst historic texts then state by the end of the 16th century, the population there was about 206,000 thousand. Then most history texts say about 200 years later when Muhammad Ali of Egypt conquered Palestine from the Ottomans and Egypt settled along the shore and the valleys, about 100,000 Egyptian peasants added to the population. This is why it is explained the Muslim population of Palestine jumped between1840 and 1880. In 1880, the population of Palestine to 300,000 people. That is historic fact any one can find in texts. No one disputes that. Of course Bud who is an historian already knew the above. It is also well known historic fact that no one disputes except Buddy Boy that when the Ottomans retook Palestine back they had a public well known policy of inviting Muslims from other parts of their Empire to move to Palestine. In fact just like Israel offered its citizens tax incentives to move to the West Bank, so did the Otoman Empire with its Circassians, Bosnians, and Albanians to name a few groups and they were offered both financial incentives and tax-free status if they agreed to move to Palestine. Now in Buddy Boy's world we ignore that part of history and just pretend all these people mnagically appeared in Palestine and were always there. In fact what the Turks did was to bring NON Arabs to Palestine (other than Jews) to push out those Arabs who lived in Palestine. This is why the Muslim population of Palestine rose 50% from 300,000 to 600,000 in just 20 years from 1900 to 1920. That of course Bud skips. Again for him these Muslims were always there. In fact what Bud will also skip over is that by 1920 the vast majority of these Muslims were not Arabs but as I said Muslism from the Ottoman Empire sent there to displace Arab Muslims. That is an historic fact,. This is precisely why in 1920, the League of Nations' Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine reported and it is there for anyone to see including Buddy Boy that there were abou 700,000 people living in Palestine of whom the majority had entered Palestine in the last 40 years. This bullshit myth Bud spews that natice Palestinian Arabs lived there as a majority and suddenly were displaced by Jews from Europe is a crock. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of the population of Palestine that depends on people not taking the time to review the origins of the people who today call themselves Palestinians but in fact are no more aboriginal to the land then any Jews who came to Palestine or Israel during the same time periods. The Leage of Nations report also stated that of those 700,000 people,235,000 lived in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. It also stated in fact while 4.5ths of the Palestinian population was Muslim, only a small proportion of those Muslims would have been Bedouin Arabs and the remainder who did speak Arabic were not Arabs meaning theyw ere not aboriginal or natives born on that land and were like Jews who came to Palestine, no different in the sense that neither was Arab and both came to Palestine but were not born there. The origins of Christian Palestinians came from the then 77,000 Christians, the majority being of Eastern Orthodoc churches and they too spoke Arabic. The Jewish element of the population numbering about 76,000 like the non Arab, non Palestinian Muslims had entered Palestine in the same 40 year period. The historic revisionism by the pro Palesstian supporters and Arab League and now UN who says anyone who wants to call themselves a descendant of Palestinians can-deliberately ignores and rewrites the actual origins of today's self identified Palestinians. I repeat again the definition used by the Arab world to define a Palestinian, is anyone who speaks Arabic and wishes to be identified as one. There is no other criteria. It is a fact that as of 1920, almost all the population of Palestine has entered Palestine during the last 40 years. And there was only a small number of ethnic Arabs The fact is Palestine was the land of immigrants: Jews from all over the world and Muslims from wherever you wish – except Arabic countries. An ignoramus like Bud who pretends he needs citations for the above can get it from any history book, or the League of Nations archives. TTeh Chirchill Papers are also public domain and have long since proven the British Administration deliberately accelerated an influx of Mulsim immigration intio Palestine further displacing the actual native Muslim Palestinians to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine. Do the math. It doesn't take a genius like Buddy Boy to add it up. The population in Palestine from 1920 to 1945 grew to 1,300,000 Muslims. The population doubled in 25 years because of that influx of non Palestinian Muslims.

Now fools like Bud come on this forum, spew absolute mistruths about hitoric facts and time lines then demand citations to prove them wrong. I do not play such games because the tactics of the Buds are then to take the citations and simply dismiss them as Zionist likes written by Zionists. Its why I will not debate a person like Bud who uses forums to spread misinformation to incite hatred. However I do point out for anyone who wants to take a look at the migration of both non Palestinian Jews and non Palestinian Arabs/Muslims to Israel and how in fact more Arab Muslim non Palestinians would have displaced Palestinians than Jews from Europe as Bud continually suggests to take a look at: http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoking-gun-arab-immigration-into-palestine http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html

Oh here we go with the Jew baiting. Oh Bleeding Heart you smell? Can Bud go a thread without making Jew comments pretexted as alleged debate over the Palestinian conflict hmmm? You Bud are pathetic. You won't debate me. You make fake quotes. That is the level you are at. Juvenile and pathetic. Some Jew baiting, never ending revisionist distortion of history and then you have the chutzbah to ask for citations from me. Go on genius, are you denying more non Palestinian Arabs displaced Palestinians then Jews? Lol. You want me to citate that do you. Get this clear Bud, you get zero citations from me precisely because I do not citate with children like you who do not debate the citations and simply ignore them. If someone else asked I probably would provide a citation but for you Bud all you get is me repeating to this forum that you are a hate monger who uses the pretext of debate about Israel to bait Jews. That is all you are. A pathetic child who baits Jews. No more no less. As for JBG and his whining I am rude, he like you reduces this debate to moronic black and white name calling and yes there is something wrong with it. Its called being intellectually lazy. For extremists like you 2 and the hew horseflies attracted to your words, there is nothing wrong with it. Your pee braisn can't frame the conflict any other way. For most of us though we see a complex maze of inter-related issues. You and JBG find me rude. Hah. Why would I use any other tone when the two of you come on this forum to be hate mongers hmm? You think either of you are entitled to any politeness with the sheer volume of hatred the two of you have spilled on this forum. Get is clear you 2 hate mongers, you spit out venom, the venom is thrown back in your face. Don't pee up wind if you want your face to stay dry you pathetic hate mongers and take this thread and shove it. Its just an other example of stereotyping to incite hatred.

As for the extremists at this convention they come in all colours, races, religions. They are all equally as disgusting and should be called out. There are Jews and Christians like Muslims who use their religion as a pretext to justify violence. Let's not pretend its exclusive to Muslims or Arabs. That said I criticize them all equally. This idea we can open our doors to anyone and everyone and accommodate them all is getting a harsh wake up call from those wishing to import their non Western values to our country. Its clashing and will continue to clash. There is back lash against Muslims in Europe for the same reasons. Some equate the Muslims of Europe today to the plight of the Romas and Jews of pre WW2/holocaust. They dress differently, have a different language and appear to have an allegiance to a God different than the Christian one. Like the Romas and Jews many myths exist about Muslims and Arabs. So the analogy might have some semblance of similiarity in that no doubt moderate, democratic, hard working, honest, peace loving Muslims are all getting smeered by being lumped in with Muslim extremists. That is why I think we need to be careful and point out these kinds of extremists who attract attention are a minority. They do not represent other Muslims or Arabs, just themselves the same way the KKK followers do not represent all Christians or some wackpot extremist religious Jews on the Westbankor Ultra Orthodox Hews represent me or any other Jews.

That was ana bsurd analogy and not it was not and is not the same but you couldnn't help but equate extremist Muslims in Canada to Jews in Nazi Germany right. Same thing. Right? Yes we have gestapo in Canada and SS and other squadrons roaming the streets. we have state sanctioned destruction and seizure of the private property of radical Muslims. We are exterminating them. Right. If Jews were criticizing Germany it would have been for those kinds of things. No Muslims at that convention were not in the same situation as Jews in Nazi Germany and no they were not criticizing such things. Your equation of holocaust era Jews to Arabs or Muslims in Canada criticizing Western values is a crock of shit. Jews did not gather to talk about overthrowing Western governments and demanding the imposition of their religious values on anyone. Your odious analogy is called out and revealed for what it is absolute bull.

Doggy Doo-for someone who claims I don't stay on point you have know problem bringing Willie Boy Clinton into this debate. Now Doggy you keep up with moi because I haven't even begun with you... You of course made this pronouncement to me: "I guess that, like Ford, you don't really understand what conflict of interest means. " Can you go one sentence without the affected mannerisms? Hmmm? You make yourself out to be camp. Enough. I hate Madonna. She is passe. You know everytime your roll those eyes I just have this horrible tendency call it a nervous habit to giggle tee hee hee hee. Listen up Charlie Manson eyes, conflict of interest has always referred to personal benefit. The attempt now to narrow it down to the narrow scenario Ruby has is a transparent politically motivated exercise. It was designed to prevent a politician for voting for a law he had a conflict of interest with or to use his office to make himself financially better off than he was before the political activity he engaged in began. See some of us know that Black Dog because our sudden awareness of conflict of interest didn't happen just after Rob Ford got elected but before that. What some of us also know is that it is the height of bull shit to sit their and rationalize a $12,000 pigfest on taxpayer's money in a riding with so many homeless is acceptable but when Ford uses his stationery to ask people to raise $3,000 for football equipment that clearly benefits kids who can not afford football equipment, you and Guyser and the rest of your Merrymen of course ignore who is benefitted from that $3,000 and using Lord knows what kind of reasoning figure equipping poor kids with sports equipment enriched Ford by $3,000. Right. Such logic. By the way go find out how much time Ford has spent with that charity. More to the point because you again missed it-he made it clear where the money was going-not one penny went to Ford and no one was pressured in paying. If that money had been collected for a charity you liked or by Adam Vaughan, you would not have said a damned word and you know it. During the time of this offence when Ford committed his own time and money to this charitty as an Alderman he paid out of his pocket for all his office expenses at all times while your beloved Kyle Rae and your other leftist band of chosen ones never once did the same and you have the nerve to lecture on morality? What you and Guyser have no moral qualms about Rae stuffing his fat face with a self indulgent displays of petulance and you find nothing inconsistent about that? Ha. That is spelled TEE HEE HEE. That Black Dog is why the vast majority of people you think you speak for can't stand people like you. They find you are completely removed from reality. You live in snit snotty elite world where anything you do is acceptable but anything a fat Ford does is not. If he was a leftist like you, you would be as selective and look the other way just as you do Rae. Give your selective righteousness another rest. Guess what. You want to suddenly pull out the law to remove elected people from office trying to engage in a twisting of the definition that will allow on the one hand allow politicians to stuff their fat faces but at the same time punish them from helping the poor-well you will alienate the very poor people you think you speak for. Go on champion of the elite snitty snots, use the law to manipulate privilege. What a grassroots under-dog socialist you are. You see Black Dog you not I embrace this Marie Antoinette life where you can eat cake at the expense of the poor because your fellow leftist snit faces say so. See me, I feel obliged not to you and Rae and your snitty little presumptious alleged leftists, but taxpayers. All I know is, I may not approve of Ford's weight, suits, hair cut or political ideology all the time or his methods of communication but I do know he practices what he preaches. He puts his money and his personal sacrifice where he says he will, for the people. That is what bothers you-that someone like him so completely removed from your world of elitist leftist privilege can be right wing but so dag nabbed honest. It beguiles you. Lol. What about you socialist champion? How the hell can you sit there justifying Rae stuffing his fat face in a riding full of homeless people and then suddenly feeling morally outraged by a $3,000 payment to underprivileged football players? What selective world do you live in? Wait don't answer that one. I already know-you live in a world where as a father, I should not tell my daughter to be careful what she wears when she goes out at night. I mean we wouldn't want to sigmatize her now would we boo boo? Right you are so consistent. I mean after all, at first you felt a tinge of understanding, but oopsy Ford acted shambolic so you changed your royal prerogative. Hah. Get help? why do I need help Black doggy Doo? Do I look like I need help. Quick go get Guyser, Now this comment I do not understand: "Rabble rabble rabble." Was that code? Rabble. Is that anything like pendantic or ticky tacky. Should I roll my eyes? Have a nice weekend American Women. I just love bbqing wieners. Gotta watch out though. You burn a wiener its called a black dog. dang I am funny. tee hee hee

You again missed the point. Here let me paraphrase you with your own words: "Lord these attempts at excuses are lame!" Now if that is too difficult for you to still understand how about I spell it out again: USING THE CRITERIA CLAYTON RUBY IS NOW USING AND WAS NOT USED ON KYLE RAE, HE WOULD NOW ALSO BE LIABLE FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I put it in bold letters. Maybe it will be easier to read. You might want to mouth the words slowly.

Yah I am taking Black dog. I hear they are serving wieners.

No its not and therein lies your continuing lack of credibility. Being what you are you can't possibly imagine there is any version of history of truth but your own and so that renders you no different than JBG a shrill. A pathetic shrill who reduces complex disputes into black and white simplistic labels. To start with by populationa lone, more non Palestinian Arab Muslims displaced native non Jewish Palestinians than European Jews ever did. You would realize that if you bothered to just once put down your one sided rhetoric and propoganda and examine the population influx into Palestine after Britain imposed an immigration policy to flood the area with Arab peoples to prevent a Jewish state from forming. Churchill was only too glad to explain this policy in his memoirs. Millions of Arabs flooded Palestine and displaced those native Palestinians. This is why Jordan had a civil war between Jordanians and Palestinians that deported Arafat who tried to kill King Hussein and it was only at that point Arafat coined the term Palestinian national. But oh hey you knew that. Your convenient take on history lumps all outsider Arabs who flooded into Palestine and their descendans as Palestinians and anyone Jewish as an outsider. Save your revisionism. Save that Syrian disinformation rewrite of history for someone else. It was in fact written by former Nazis who moved to Syria and manufactured it for the Syrian Ministry of Information. At least find out where you spew your recycled kack from. The actual true Palestinian itinerant farmers were displaced by fellow Arabs and Muslims far more then they were by Jews. Fact is the majority of people today called Palestinian are descended from non Palestinian Arabs who moved there just as much as Jews did. More to the point your trying to rewrite history or JBG's efforts are equally pointless. The two of you can distort the past all you want, it won't change the present or the future and in the grand scheme of things your hateful polarizing rhetoric means nothing. Get it through your hateful people today called Palestinians may be descendant from actual itinerant Palestinians or those who flooded the area in the 1920's onwords. Those who are now called Israelis might have been Jews from the holocaust (oh how convenient you sanitize it as simply "Europe') but more came from being thrown out of Arab countries and non European countris-as many if not more than the actual number of Arabs displaced from Palestine some of whom were Palestinian and some of whom moved to Palestine. Not all Israelis came from Europe hard as it is for your black and white rigid stereotyping mind to decipher. Today Israelis have come from many countries other than Europe and no not all are Jews. There are Christian Israelis, Duze Israelis, Muslim (Arab) Israelis, Bahai Israelis, Albanian Muslim Israelis, Rastafarians, Zoroastrians, atheists and agnostics. There are even Jewish Israelis who are ultra orthodox and do not believe in the State of Israel's existence and sorry to burst your bubble some of the bravest Israeli soldiers were Muslim/Arab and Druze.Shove your European Jew sterotype up your keester. Save it for when you wink wink nudge nudge talk about dah Jooz to your real audience. Remember this one has people who know not all us JOOOOOOOZ practice Judaism the religion the same way or at all or have the identical opinions about Israeli foreign or internal policies. Hard as that is for you to fathom. Israelis and Palestinians whatever their origin are where they are to stay. It matters little what their origins are. Go save your exchange fwith JBG for some public washroom at Macy's in New York where it belongs. ( I had the pleasure of walking into such a discussion one time and there I was simply wanting to dispose of some uric acid imagine that ) The fact is both peoples de facto exist and can go no where and none of your rheoric changes that.

Boo! I am watching. Heaven forbid someone should call all Arabs or Muslims terrorists right? pssst, do you think all Arabs/Muslims are anti Israel? You want to use ethnic generalities I will challenge you same reason you would if it was done against you. Now get back to the subject you were debating you don't really want me ranting again do you? Boo again!

Sweety that was the point. Oh go on now. Try read it again. Jethro: Was Kyle Rae cited for conflict of interest? Jed: One of these days I have to have a long talk with that boy.

Shady two things. First I am Canadian so I do not presume to tell Yanks how to vote so any reading this should know that. I respect their right to vote for who they want. 2. That said I have always supported the Democrats and now I think even for a middle of the roader like me I would even more so after listening to people you left off the list, Biden, Kerry and yegads I will say it Eva Longoria. Seriously the difference in conventions is like night and day. Never have I seen politics in the two parties so distinct. For those of us who actually read the platforms and not necessarily watch simply the shows on t.v. even last election between McCain and Obama they were almost identical in foreign policy and economic policy no matter how many people tried to say otherwise. What has clearly happened in American politics is on the floors of the Senate and Congress party members on each side are split all over the place. You have some Democrats far more conservative in politics then Obama and likewise vice vera some Republics far less consevative then the guys right now in charge. The map of who stands for what is all over the place. That hinky promise of no new taxes one lobby group tried to tie all senators and congressmen to seems to be unravelling. What we now see emerging is class warfare vocabulary in not so subtle terms-lower and middle class v.s. upper class. That is how the Democrats are labelling it no doubt. What also is clear is the Republican party is not on full cylinders. To miss out on thanking American soldiers was a glaring mistake at their convention the Dems pounced all over. Romney is being pillaged on his confused foreign policy. What I think has happened is some of the Christian Evangelist base of Republican votes is taking the election off not wanting to support a Mormon (oops I almost said moron). I think Romney is not going to get that heavy Christian fundamentalist turn out he needs. As for Obama I just don't know if he will get record numbers coming out again. At this point from what I have seen the Dems are winning the war of image. Romney is just not coming off as a person of the people. Push comes to shove he just does not have the ordinary man touch. As much as I detested Bush I get what the image makers did with him. He was a goof-a good old boy, someone the guy on the street would say-duh he's ordinary like me. That gosh shucks goof act worked over the brainy Ivy College approach of Kerry. Problem is with Obama, everyone now wants a guy who looks good in a suit and is an over achiever not under achiever. Everyone knows Romney is a born into wealth button down shirt guy. He can roll up the sleeves all he wants but he is a sheltered rich boy. Obama wears those slick suits but people know he worked his way up on his brains not his money. I just don't see born into the money elitism pulling this election off and at the end of the day that is what this war of images will come down to, privileged rich boy underachiever and unprivileged overachieving poor boy. Only this is not a race issue. Never was. This is an economic class issue something Bud and his Syrian disinformation league just don't get. Its not a matter of colour-its a matter of class. If you are poor, black or white, you aint gonna identify with Republican. There are minority people who buy into Republican. It has nothing to do with their colour and everything to do with their level of income. Wealthy non whites like wealthy whites don't want taxes. Its human nature. Those that have want to preserve and protect. Those who do not have, want what others have and they feel they do not. Problem is in bad times calling on your rich to form a wagon to keep the poor out of your neighbourhoods doesn't work. Not enough of you to form those wagons. No problem. After Romney loses, Jeb Bush will come running in and then we shall see who in the Democrats will tangle with him. Certainly not Biden. He'll be 75 by then. He may very well retire in office paving the way for the next Democrat hopeful. In this polarized environment I just hope there is no campaign violence as things heat up. Class warfare invites street violence. Its only a matter of time until some violence breaks out.

Just in case anyone misses, you prove once again what you are-a pathetic racist hate monger. You turn every debate into this level of response. It shows blatantly what you are and what you stand for. But hey I can hear Bleeding Heart now running to your defence. He can't smell a whiff of racism. By the way you elitist little pipsqueak there are plenty of semi literate people of all colours from white to black who support both parties-your pathetic attempts to smeer people with racist name tags is par for the course. Buddy Boy. Now he claims to be literate. Hah.

There you have it stated in Oscar Wilde poetic verse: "bizarre shambolic defense". Here let me try some Chuck Dickens on you: "your personal subjective selective opinions as to who you want to spit on mean jack sheeyit. You might also want to stop standing in the wind when you spit. You look all wet."

He never lied. You are full of it. More to the point he never personally benefitted unlike Kyel Rae who you have no problems stuffing his fat face on the way out with $12,000 in tax payers money. Once again you are selective with your morality. How did he lie? Go on tell everyone Mr. Morality Police. He was as blatant as it could get about where the money was going. The whole reason this is an issue is because people like you can't stand the fact he was politically elected so you have to manufacture some bullshit reframing of the conflict of interest law. Now it does not apply to personal interests. Go on Moral Czar of all that is proper, show how his helping people who could not otherwise afford it to play football is a personal benefit that got him elected. Shut the door on the way out you two faced double standarded moral purveyor of what is acceptable in life. Say now when you were stuffing your face at Kyle Rae's benefit did your extra calorie intake ever set of just a twinge of guilt? Next time you two faced sob's have a party do it with your own money. See that is the difference. Ford didn't spend taxpayer's money something you just don't get with your selective outrage saved only for those you disagree with. Run along honey buns.