Rue

Sorry just read your comment about the Strawman arguement-Point taken. It was not germaine to the issue we were discussing.

I think we should stop after the comments " I don't think". That said you have stated numerous opinions now about historic incidents with not one shred of evidence to base your opinions. For example, the above remark appears absurd. How do you know what the Japanese agenda was as to Russia? What basis other then you making it up as you go along do you use for such a conclusion? Are you capable of providing any historic material or references for your claims or at this point are you just saying what-ever comes to mind at any given moment? I find it hard to believe if you are an expert on World War Two, you are now an expert on Japanese foreign policy during World War Two. Do you read Japanese? Right. Here's a hint, Japan's dispute with Russia was on-going and all credible historic references indicate there would be been yet another armed confrontation with or without World War Two. Start by reading any book on Japanese-Russian disputes ANY one. As for your other comments, they are unreferenced and you don't even make an effort to show any reasoning for them so they are in my opinion unworthy of a response from anyone. Until you make an effort to provide some sort of basis for what you remark, all you do is make noise.

Keng you started off calling George Bush an idiot. You even confirmed this by responding to another poster by saying it is a fact George Bush is an idiot. (which by the way shows how you do not understand the difference between your subjective opinions and what facts are once again) Now you respond to me and have the audacity to say you never tried to deny saying George Bush was an idiot? Here are your words Keng: "Where did I "call someone an idiot" on this thread?" Keng its bad enough you have the audacity to tell a poster you are an expert on World War Two history then make references to alleged web-sites and never provide them. Now you play these games? You got caught trying to suggest discussing the bombing issue was discriminatory against non Jews who died in Aushwitz and your attempt to try deny that by suggesting you were only in fact referring to AmericanGal's post was transparent. So is this attempt to deny calling George Bush an idiot by now trying to suggest you were only denying calling other posters an idiot. Its also transparent Keng because you are the same person who claims he is an expert on World War Two. To date Keng you have told posters you are superior to them and no more then them and are an expert on; 1-the New Testament 2-who a Christian is 3-who a sinner is 4-human sexuality, homo-sexuality, pedophilia 5-Jewish religion and culture 6-aboriginal culture and traditions 7-anthropoly including ethnography, martriarchal societites 8-women and inter-gender relationships 9-World War Two history. Interesting you have yet to state what Christian sect you are a member of our what academic credentials you have that leads you to call yourself an expert and superior to others in knowledge about any of these areas. Interesting you have once again after claiming to be an expert on a subject, in this case World War Two, not provided one reference for your opinions. This is why Keng I challenge you and repeat again, your comments about the role of the US in WW2 is based on your subjective unsubstantiated opinions and serve only to do one thing-insult their contributions. For that and all the above Keng you should be challenged. I repeat once again to the Amercs on this forum, he speaks only for himself.

With Keng's calling Bush an idiot then denying it, trying to back peddle on suggesting the Aushwitz bombing debate discriminated against non Jews and now suggesting the Americans have a questionable war record is precisely the kind of exercise of exploiting history to justify being intolerant and disresepectfil that the memory of those who died i n the holocaust or at war as a soldier should never be used for and I thank White Doors for capturing that in his response. Rest assured you Americans have nothing to defend or apologize for and the memory of your soldiers like the memory of our soldiers is and will always be RESPECTED and hopefully be remembered and used to make us on both sides of the border better people. But come on you Yanks have watered down beer and nothing can change that or the fact that our beer is superior. But it evens out since we have Celine Dion.

Wilber you raise a very legitimate issue and that is the issue of the double standard by which the very same fundamentalists who try to claim they speak on behalf of the entire Islamic population in Canada and tell them what they should find offensive remain curiously silent when their own people in the very name of the same religion they claim is now offended, engage in the very acts they criticize others for. If there is one thing I have found its that people who claim they are religious and offended are themselves religiously offensive not to mention they have bad hair-cuts and hygiene issues (I thought I would throw that in). Great point.

The quickest way to shut me up Keng is to provide references for these comments you throw out as facts. Without references they are remarks. Without any objective basis I look at these remarks and when I see all they do is make negative assumptions and then assign negative generalizations to a target, i.e., an entire group of people or gender or race or people of a specific religion or culture, I challenge you and will continue to do so. Until you provide references for your remarks they are nothing more then subjective opinions and as such they should be challenged if they call on people which they do, to engage in the same negative assumptions. I do not think "hate" is too strong a term for what you state. Why? Because your comments necessarily call on people to consider the target of your comments morally inferior and so capable of being ridiculed and feeling superior over them. That to me is hatred. If someone else wants to call it a simple opinion of yours, be my guest. I once again ask you to provide references for your comments when you claim they are fact and to state the religious sect you claim you base your religious views on. Keng for you to ask what outrageous claims means what? Would you have anyone believe you are not aware of your remarks? Would you have anyone believe your refusal to back up your subjective opinions with any reference when you claim it is a fact is not outrageous? Say what you want Keng but when I have challenged you I have provided specific references to challenge your opinions. Until you do the same with any fellow poster, you show what? That you are intellectually lazy or simply fabricating as you go along? How in the absence of any references is it possible to conclude anything but that your comments are based on your biases which are flawed precisely because you won't reference and research them and consider if they may be based on something you have misunderstood or have deliberately ignored? You want to know what is outrageous? Outrageous is someone believing their reigion is the only correct one. You would have people believe your belief in immaculate conception, a God (clearly not from this world) impregnated a human to create a hybrid God-man. You ridicule others for believing in their legends and yet you expect people to respect yours? Outrageous is you telling everyone to be a true Christian they must think like you, and that being a true Christian means you have the right to dismiss anyone who does not think like you as an inferior sinner and refer to them in derogatory terms. Outrageous is trying to simplify a complex, multi-tiered and elaborate faith system such as the ones the aboriginal societies have followed as a belief in spacemen when you yourself preach the exact same thing and more to the point, this religion you claim to understand prohibits you from using it to put down others or call them immoral or inferior. And on that note, I could also say outrageous is me continuing to challenge you but outrage is the fuel of many a good debate. The point is Keng you will never understand aboriginals or anyone else, if you simply assume you understand them without ever making the effort to learn who they are and what they believe in and no Keng it means more then going on the internet and reading one article from a hate site or reading only things you agree with.

But I do respect Alexandra's right to say she is sick and tired of me responding to Keng and probably feels the best way to deal with him is to ignore him. That point is not missed on me, and I concede her point. I just respectfully disagree.

If I was American I would vote for Obama. If Hilary won, I would vote for John McCain. I think Hilary Clinton has dirty baggage and trying to spit at Obama as a junior to her is b.s. She is also a junior Senator and he has far more elected office experience then she has and more to the point Obama has no real estate scandals and people committing suicide over his real estate deals. McCain is an honourable man he is the best of a bad lot of choices on the Republican side. On the demo side, Obama not Hilary has the best ability to unite and rejuvenate the US both on the world stafe and internally between Reps and Dems. The above opinions are expressed by someone who thinks Ron Paul is a right extremist racist wack job.

Read what you write Keng. You show with the above words that your intent was to use this topic to advance a political agenda. As usual the very next sentence after the one you accuse others of engaging in, you engage in. Bush's comments have nothing to do with non Jewish victims of the holocaust and for you to raise it shows once again what your agenda is, to use a topic, in this case Bush's topic, to do what? What is your point now Keng trying to now suggest this discussion is unfair to "other" victims? Your transparency Keng should be obvious to anyone who reads your comments. You want to raise a debate to suggest the camps couldn't have been bombed then do so. Interestingly your arguement for this when you finally did try justify your original comment was convaluted. You on the one hand restated after denying it, that you felt it was not possible from an operational point of view. On that you are absolutely wrong. The air operations that would have been required to engage in bombing either or both the railway tracks and camps could have easily been added to the other air sortes and all historians are now unanimously agreed the concern was not one of military logistics or air support at all and never was. The real issue was the political issue of killing innocent vicitims in the camps. And no Keng despite your attempts to use this issue to engage in division it was not as you infer an attempt to put Jews out of their misery at the expense of other victims. The debate as to bombing the camps took into consideration everyone being tortured and dying in the camps not just Jews and so your transparent comment that this current discussion us unfair to other victims is pure b.s. This was an issue with no answer. On the one hand bombing these camps would have prevented even more people from being gassed and tortured, on the other hand it would have killed innocent people. Either way, innocent people would die. It was a Catch 22 and you missed this entire point precisely Keng because your agenda was to assume there was an obvious answer and Bush was an idiot for showing compassion. Bush's comment was rhetorical not literal. His wondering out loud and comment he made is simply a comment all leaders find themselves faced with. As for some of you other posters who feel they can relate this to Bush's other policies on Iran, or Iraq, you are taking seperate issues and trying to make them all one in the same and by so doing you do what Keng wants, for you to miss the original simple meaning, and turn it into an opportunity to express negativity. Bush's policies as to Iraq, Iran, e tc., have nothing to do with the issue he was talking about. When you blur them together you simply confuse the issues and dettract from the importance of each issue. It could very well be some of you find Bush a cold blooded killer and murderer because he endorsed bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then say so without relating it to the issue of whether Aushwitz should have been bombed. Limit it to Bush's policies as to Iraq, etc. The fact you think he may be wrong about Iraq, Iran, etc., doesn't mean he could not say what he said about Aushwitz. You are doing exactly what Keng lectures people not to do and what he does-use one issue to advance another agenda, which in Keng's case is to call Bush an idiot and now try suggest to talk about whether the camps should have been bombed "ignores other victims" a couched reference for suggesting victims other then Jews.

No the point appears to be lost on you. I have not in the past nor do I now challenge his right to speak. I challenge what he says. I challenge what he says because I believe he does not provide a basis in fact for the opinions I challenge and the opinions I challenge I contend are based on subjective hatred and nothing else. I disagree with you that freedom of speech means I am not allowed to challenge someone I disagree with. Freedom of speech to me is a privilege and a responsibility and means if I remain silent to such comments I condone them and therefore do not respect freedom of speech. Tell me Alexandra if you were the target of his hatred would you simply remain silent or would you challenge what he says? Do you think freedom of speech requires you remain silent when you disagree with what someone says? if you want to ignore Keng or agree with him, be mu guest. If you want to agree or disagree with me, be my guest-but no I do not have to remain silent because that is what you think freedom of speech entails and I will continue to challenge his comments when they are not based on referenced fact and exhibit hatred towards people he identifies.

Are you sugesting you are planning on having children?

I support AmercGodesses comments and have this to say to you. The debate as to whether the railway lines leading to the death camps as well as the camps themselves should have been blown up is a credible debate. Some feel the harm that continued was greater then any harm that would have happened by blowing up the camps or at least tracks. You Sir once again make remarks based on what other then your need to insult someone to make you feel smug and superior? Bush showed compassion. His comments were not meant literally but as a genuine comment of grief and regret. No one took his comments as anything but a man showing genuine sadness and nothing he said was not openly questioned by Churchill, Eisenhower and many militrary generals after the war. As for your comment the bombing could not have been accomplished you are absolutely and completely wrong and make a comment with no reference for your assumption repeating your continued exercise of uttering your subjective remarks with no basis for them. All you have to do is read Keng. Its public record. The decision not to bomb was purely political-no leader wanted to be the one to kill innocent victims for a greater good and if you can not understand why that was a decision they would not make Keng its time you once in your life be quiet and read a history book. If someone has genuine interest in why the allies did not bomb the camps and why Bush said what he said they can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/...ers/faq_29.html http://www.feri.org/news/news_detail.cfm?QID=826 Keng's comments that the allies could not bomb the camps because they did not have the capacity is as usual without any basis. In fact the allies were bombing all around the camps. To simply add them to the list of what they were bombing was not the issue at all and for Keng to come on this forum, misrepresent history for his own need to insult and call someone an idiot who showed some genuine compassion is typical. Bush may be a loser/idiot/fool etc., in many ways but the fact that he showed some genuine remorse is nothing to ridicule and no one but Keng seems to have.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission must follow through on a complaint which it is doing. Can it legally prevent a newspaper from publishing a political cartoon? Let's talk about the law shall we. The Charter of Rights guarantees freedom of speech but does allow the courts discretion to limit it. The law today in Canada is that if a statement published publically, i.e., on the inter-net, in a newspaper, in a public display area incites violence, i.e., tells people to hurt others or actually states to hate them, then under criminal hate laws in the criminal code criminal charges could be layed against the publisher resulting in a fine and or jail time. Nothing stops anyone on an individual level from suing anyone if they feel the comments caused them physical or emotional damage. They will have to prove on a balance of probabilities the offending publication directly caused their injuries which might be impossible to prove. The Human Rights Commission was really intended to act as a tribunal for allegations of work place harassement or discrimination getting jobs or in enjoying access to public places. It was never designed to be an arbitrator of what comments are acceptable in the press and its probable if any decision from a human rights commission ever was so stupid as to try limit freedom of expression it would quickly be appealed and thrown out. I personally do not think this commission or any commission would be stupid enough to try censor what is in a newspaper and try define a standard for what is acceptable with political cartoons precisely because it is impossible to define. They will most likely decline to do anything other then make some comment to the public and Muslim associations that they would hope newspapers remain sensitive to changing community needs and interests. The particular cartoons are clearly relevant to any story as to them and the back-lash they caused. People have the right to look at these cartoons and decide on an individual basis whether they think they are offensive or not. That is the issue. If someone ran a story of an anti-semitic cartoon and showed it as part of the story, as a Jew, no I would not wet my pants. I would hope however the cartoon is not blown up, upgraded to full colour and placed on a huge spread or the front page. I hope it would be shown with moderation and simply be used as part of the story explaining how it caused discontent. In this specific case most papers could have but chose not to run the cartoons because they felt they could get the same point across simply describing them. Its a discretionary call. Some papers deliberately publish things to inflame, others to deliberately avoid inflamming. It often comes down to an editorial decision based on circulation and sales. I am sure we are all aware how the Toronto Sun likes to use its front cove to titillate or alarm with its pictures to sell papers. In this specific case Levant deliberately did what he did to test the limits of freedom of speech to make the point that censoring the cartoons is wrong. He knew what would happen. He deliberately planned this to test the law. If an editorial cartoon could be shown to increase the likelihood of a riot or violent attack, its possible someone could ask for a temporary injunction to prevent its publication until a court decides whether it should go ahead or not. One of the reasons most newspapers today don't deliberately publish things that will inflame is not because they can't but because they want to avoid the legal nuisance fees that go along with having to defend in court their right to say what they do. In this case with due respect there is no real legal issue. The fact that the Human Rights Commission is going through the motions and its mandate to at least investigate means nothing. To leap to the legal conclusion they will censor the newspaper is with due respect melodramatic at this point. First off the cartoons are already published-so even if the Commission had a brain cramp and tried to fine the newspaper or chastize it imagine how absurd the decision would read tryingt o define why its not acceptable to draw political cartoons if you think they will offend someone. Look testing the limits of freedom of speech yes its a serious issue in this day and age with politically proper people and our habit of creating a nation of victims for virtually any reason. But no, your freedom of speech will not vanish because of this belief some of you have Muslims are out to censor the press and Islamicize you. It could be that many Islams came here precisely for the freedom of speech? It could be many or the majority of Muslims are not in favour of censorship and the people making the fuss are a minority? Do any of you really know? Look I remember some ultra-orthodox Jewish guy making a big deal about the City of Mississauga having to light a Menorah during Chanbukah. Do you automatically assume I agree with him cuz I am Jewish? I mean why do we always assume all Muslims in Canada automatically favour censorship on this issue? All I am saying is while I do not doubt there are fundamentalist Muslims in this country who will make a lot of noise-that is what interest groups do, make noise-whether they actually represent anyone but themselves is another story. I think sometimes we give too much attention to these interest groups and their leaders. Sometimes I blame the same press. For example in Toronto, the press went out of there way to depict Dudley Laws as a black comunity leader and spokesman. In reality this was someone smuggling illegal immigrants into Canada and who had a cult following of 20 or so people and had a hard on for the police because of his own past criminal record for which I believe was drug pushing and pimping and then the illegal immigration stuff. The press chose to make this man a spokesperson. He wasn't elected by anyone and the presumption he had strong widespread support was as dumb as trying to depict all blacks as being the same and having the same thoughts on certain issues. Too much stereotyping going on and not enough attention paid to the actual issue which is-if a group squawks and screams over a political cartoon, well then big deal. Its part of freedom of speech and 99.99% of us know that. I personally think we should arrest any man (or woman) with a beard who yells in public or burns anything in public and send them to Greenland. That would solve a lot of the problems. I think these beards cause problems myself.

You going to back this up Keng with some proof or is this yet another one of your remarks where you smeer people with no basis other then your personal subjective feelings? How many more unsubstantiated accusations are there in that mind of yours-it appeats endless. Its easy to slur people when you can hide behind an anonymous pen name and speak in generalities isn't t Keng. Unfortunately you exploit the piurpose of this purpose to engage in such comments not use it as an exerciuse to exchange genuine opinions based on something other then whatt you do. Again Keng what was the purpose of the above comment other then to name call, utter an inneuendo and try be divisive? How does it contribute to the discussion other then to inflame?

So Keng, once again you can't resist the role of the preacher pointing the finger of accusation. Right this coming from someone who has yet to do anything but come on this forum and make remarks which he claims re based on facts but provides no references and for that matter won't even state the alleged Christian sect he is a member of. Right. You have the credibility to be able to lecture others on what is lame. Look in the mirror Keng and yes I am challenging you to practice what you preach.

Each time you come on this forum and engage in a comment I feel needs to be challenged because it has no reference or basis and expresses your subjective feelings or hatred or conempt for others I will challenge you openly. That is called freedom of speech and that is why we have this forum to debate and challenge. To suggest I am stalking you is absurd. It is out in the open. My intent is open, explicit and obvious. You might want to try responding with references to your plethora of remarks which you claim are based on facts and your expertise as to the New Testament, anthropoliogy, history, the holocaust, sexology, women's issues, aboriginal culture, etc. Still waiting for your academic credentials, references to the alleged academic sources you quote, and of course the Christian sect you claim you belong to which forms the basis of your beliefs.

I must say Oleg you have some interesting comments and what worries me is I think I understand what you are saying! No one can accuse you of being left or right that is for sure. Look I only have one minor disagreement and I do not think you even intended it to sound the way you did. I do not doubt the conflict in Afghanistan is not a "coventional" war if that is what you mean by "real" but I am sure you would agree the conflict is real and the soldiers dying are for real. I would make this arguement again. I think the days of conventional wars such as in WW1 and 2 are over. I think what we today have are in fact terror cells fighting conventional armies that are used as political police forces to try contain terrorists. Consequently the conventions as to war are not designed for what we see happening. We have conventional armies being asked to act outside their traditional mandate and fight civilians. These civilian terrorists are not soldiers. They do not wear uniforms and they break every law and convention known to man. So on the one hand we expect our conventional armies to abide by traditional war conventions but when terrorists are in fact captured we are not sure what to do with them since they are in fact both domestic and international criminals. We clearly need to set up an international court to detain and try terrorists based on a world convention. We need to clearly define what a terrorist is and then determine who has a mandate as a sovereign nation to go after terrorists and what they do with them once captured. In an ideal world we would have an international anti-terrorist army not accountable to any one sovereign nation but the UN and intenational laws but I am not sure the US, China or Russia would ever agree to such a thing. I also can not imagine a nation victimized by terrorists wanting to hand them over to an international tribunal so at best such laws could only apply when foreign nation armies occupy a country since no nation will give up its soverign right to capture and try terrorists on its own soil. Some argue in the case of Kadr, he should have been turned over to the host country. If you have a country that in effect has no government and legal system to take over such terrorists then should we have not have this international apperatus step in and take over? Do we want any nation including the US to ignore international laws and just go anywhere at any time and capture people and try them. Years ago the state of Israel took a huge risk mounting an operation to capture Adolph Eichman form Argentina precisely because Argentina had no intention of deporting him. It showed there are very serious flaws in international law if a country uses its sovereignty to protect terrorists which is why the US is arguing it can do what it does now. So this brings us back again to the question-should we not have an international court with an international army that could enforce international laws on all countries? Is it possible?

Lol. Race in such a manner is of course someone's subjective considerations as to what they think are another's physical characteristics. Some feel it important to keep the gene pool stagnant to carry on the family tradition of particular deformities and mutations. If Queen Liz had married say Harry Belefonte instead of Phil, just think, Prince Charles may have had nicer ears. Personally for me dating and procreating out of my gene pool is a necessity. I do not want my children looking like me. I want them to have a chance in life.

Oleg you raise something I do not expect you to be able to state except in the way you did. Its your child who has been exposed to violence. It goes to your most primative instinct of wanting to protect your child from harm. I would expect you to be nothing but angry, disillusioned and just plain fed up. You know damn well I could fill you full of neutral calming language but fat good that does when each day your child is in a war zone. For me, I see parents of every colour, religion, ethnicity, etc., saying the exact same thing as you. Racism is racism regardless of who does it to who. Violence is violence. All I can say is Oleg is what the f..ck has happened where children of ANY colour/race/ethnicity are able to behave in this manner and when they aren't doing the above, carrying drugs or engaging in gang wars or treating young women with violence and disrespect? They have sent me in to mediate such disputes and I am telling you I could not deal with the layers of players other then the actual offenders and victims each with their own agenda preventing common sense from prevailing. See to me a school should have no guns, drugs, people coming to school dressed in gang colours, students disrespecting their teachers, etc. The question is who enforces the rules? See there are no shortage of rules but no one will enforce them because to enforce them means a whole set of political problems. I mean Oleg one thing you know very well is that this begins and ends with parents but if there are NO parents or the parent is stoned or drugged or a criminal or compromised, etc., you know there is no one to sit that child down and say-this is bull. I have been in meetings where parents are shown clear evidence their child beat someone and they say its racism to point that out and racism caused the child to beat the other one. Both sides are rationalizing failure and violence using the "its society's fault" shtick. Parents now expect their schools to be parents. They want to dump the child as early as possible and pick him or her up as late as possible and then when they get older simply give them a key and tell them they are on their own. How do we teach parents their children are their responsibility until they leave home? How do you stop children from having children and then perpetuating this b.s. Of course we need role models and after school programs and structured sports, etc. The government has cut back funding in all those areas (yes that was Mike Harris) and parents too have to accept the blame. I myself am truly moved by parents like you whose children are victimized and no one gives a shit and its just part of the system no one will talk about. Many parents of all categories agree with you. As one parent to another I have nothing I can say other then I regret everything that has happened to your kid. Whether he uses this bull that has happened to him to make him stronger and better for it, or whether it screws him up the rest of his life, you will still have a say in. Believe in yourself in that respect to show him the right way nno matter how bs it seems.

Thanks. I respect people on both sides of this conflict. There are good people on both sides of this conflict who through no fault of their own have been thrown into this fucked up mess. Idiots on both sides engaged in violence can only make it worse. People like me only mean to comment on and criticize people like me, i.e., people not directly involved who comment on it. I only say people like us can state an opinion but if we simply inflame the issues by being rude to either side and generalize either side as idiots, we only make matters worse. There are people like you who have your positions based on genuine well thought out points. I only hope those people directly fucked up by this on either side, can find a way out without smart asses including me with our comments making it worse. I can not presume to know what it is like to have it directly in my face like some of the parties have. I think the comment from the poster who witnessed a shit thing with his daughter but could stay so level headed on this post is an example of the kind of thing that will resolve this-people who have a right to be angry but keep themselves focused. My issues with Keng have really nothing to do with this post but a general over-all issue which I know annoys some and I would kindly ask they just ignore me when I respond to Keng but I am doing it based on a principal I strongly believe in actually taught to me by a Christian theologian of all people who is dead but would expect me to do what I am doing. Thanks again for the patience to anyone I have annoyed with my posts. I say it again, this conflict will be resolved. The hard feelings that come as a result of the violence will take time to heal and I am not in the position to tell anyone who has personally felt this anything other then people like me have to help people like you find a way to resolve this shit in a fair way. You have the right to live in peace and not have to live in this stalemate which is the direct result in my opinion of failed federal policies that have screwed both sides.

Here are specific references to indicate what Buffy claims are lies have been documented as fact. 1. To find out what Ron Paul's positions are one can go to; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul 2. In regards to Mr. Paul's racrism, it is a fact he is against affirmative action and voted against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. It is a fact his campaign office admitted accepting $500 from the head of Stormfront and would not return it. It is a fact he openly accepts support from extreme Christian right wing groups and David Duke and the KKK and other extremists such as; http://www.patriotnetwork.info/Leaders.htm For an interestings series of inter-net articles on Mr. Paul's relations with white supremacists one can go to; http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archiv...aul-bill-white/ http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archiv...on-black-photo/ http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archiv...-thai-expenses/ Here is what a leading Nazi leader says about Ron Paul which you will find in the above references: "Ron Paul Lies About Lack Of Involvement With White Nationalists Comrades: I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism. Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens. I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy. For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position. I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous — and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable. Bill White, Commander American National Socialist Workers Party“ Here are other references to Mr. Paul's extremist connections; http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...15-4532a7da84ca http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...15-4532a7da84ca (copy of newsletter) http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html I did not rely on the following web-site and instead went to web-sites whose information can be tested from going to neutral sources but this web-site is the kind of web-site I found particularly for Buffy to have fun with; http://ronpaulexposed.com/ The fact is to deny Paul is an extremist with links to white supremacists who he is aware of is dumb. And the question is, and I ask this to Buffy-if he is the honest, progressive man you claim he is-why does he associate himself with these racists and why does he hold classic right wing views? Tell me Buffy do you agree with his positions or just the one you think makes him anti-Zionist? How do you explain all his other views and the people he shakes hands with and accepts money from? Tell me Buffy, you against abortion, affirmative action, the theory of evolution? Do you think the UN should be abolished and the poor should look after themselves? Well? What part of the above are lies? I would be interested to know Buffy if what you are saying is you are comfortable supporting a politician who sees no need to distance himself from Nazis? As for his newsletters with racist content, I even provided you a reference with the exact copy of one. His initial defence was he didn't know who signed it. Perhaps you may want to research the kinds of comments he directed at his political opponent Barbra Jordan from Texas when he accused her of using her race and gender to get votes and accused her of having a phony British accent. This is a nasty racist Buffy who you claim to be your Messiah. Enjoy.

Dog you may want to reference where you got the above info from because some people are going to challenge the above stats. I appreciate the point you are making which is to speak frankly, candidly and honestly about such facts if we are going to deal with this and similar issues and not have it turn into a pc circus to avoid doing anything.