Would Ron Paul make a good President? Or do we need someone more like our current president, Bush?

What's this four part video about?

1. YouTube - Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENA0vxLwoq4)

2. YouTube - Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KloETuVJx2c)

3. YouTube - Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIBPGvK7Pg0)

4. YouTube - Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 4, Final Part) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFfhObkxzBE)

Hopefully this one gets some answers and comments. Some other videos I posted about Ron Paul did not show up or vanished. Are there different ways of posting videos? I think I'm doing something wrong here? You just paste them up right?

Anyway, Ron Paul for president?
What's this four part video about?
1. YouTube - Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENA0vxLwoq4)
2. YouTube - Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KloETuVJx2c)
3. YouTube - Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIBPGvK7Pg0)
4. YouTube - Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 4, Final Part) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFfhObkxzBE)

Duckling

If there was censorship in the strictest sense we would not have even heard of Mr Paul or his stands on the issues.

Disagreement and debate over his stand on various issues is not the same as censorship

Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)
Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.

The Paulies think there is censorship because the networks decide what is and isn't newsworthy . Ron Paul has a very small vocal support base . But he is still as blip on history and his poll numbers reflect that.

Oh I get it . There is a conspiracy to silence Ron Paul . The polls must be rigged against him also because if he were polling in double figures he certainly would be getting the attention of those corporate networks that really run the country. I wonder what Sam Brownback,Tom Trancedo ,Duncan Hunter said that threatened corporate America ? Surely that is why they are not doing better also !

Censorship is when government interferes with free speech, not when TV networks don't report it for their own reasons ;whatever they may be. From my perspective ;he gets much more coverage than his low ratings would indicate he deserves .

Is Ron Paul saying things they don't like?Hello Duck:

If you listen closely to Ron Pauls message, of course they don't like it. NONE of the entrenched groups like him. He will destroy them.

Is he being censored?? No. He's a fringe candidate.

That's actually a statement about the decline of America, rather than a slam on Ron Paul. The notion, that in the America I love, a Constitutionalist candidate would be considered "fringe", is a sad statement, indeed.

excon

Censorship is when government interferes with free speech, not when tv networks don't report it for their own reasons ;whatever they may be. From my perspective ;he gets much more coverage than his low ratings would indicate he deserves .

No that's not true. Typically censorship is done by a government, but in our free society, the mass media, for example, can be the leading force of censorship. If you start watching news from around the world, like from Canada (CBC) or England (BBC), you will start to see how much censorship American media has. Thank God for the Internet.

Anyway, he's only trying to follow our Constitution... why do they fear him for this? I mean, the Constitution is there to give power to the American citizens.

He is fringe in that he denies the inherent powers derived or inferred from specific powers in the U.S. Constitution.He only thinks that expressed delegated powers are legitimate ;a view shared by virtually no constitutional scholar. All 3 branches ,including the judiciary which has made a number of rulings about inherent powers agree that they are constitutional .

Actually ;I wonder what Ron Paul thinks about Judicial review ? Certainly the Supreme court divined that power unto itself in in Marbury v. Madison... right ?

Ron Paul if he truly performed in office as he claims the executive should would be a weak President indeed.

Some other videos I posted about Ron Paul did not show up or vanished.

I deleted some of your posts because they were inappropriate to the forum you posted them in and weren't valid responses to the threads you posted.

Censorship is generally associated with the Constitutional right of free speech as expressed in the 1st amendment. That amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws inhibiting free speech. It is not censorship to not deny someone a platform for their views, only to deny them the right to express those views.

From what I've seen of Paul, he is not an acceptable candidate because his views don't deal with the realities of the world as it exists today.

Ron Paul appeals to the fringe. He isn't a viable candidate in the Twenty-First Century.

From what I've seen of Paul, he is not an acceptable candidate because his views don't deal with the realities of the world as it exists today.

Really?

Why do you say that, when he's a candidate that actually speaks of reality and truth.
Didn't you watch the clips when he said on Fox, "actually, no one seems to be talking about this, but half of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi Arabians" - and of course they cut him off. He was, after all, only pointing out reality...

Seems like the more reality and facts you spread, some people start saying "man this guy is out of touch with reality". Now this doesn't make any sense to me.

Hello Duck:

If you listen closely to Ron Pauls message, of course they don't like it. NONE of the entrenched groups like him. He will destroy them.

Is he being censored??? No. He's a fringe candidate.

That's actually a statement about the decline of America, rather than a slam on Ron Paul. The notion, that in the America I love, a Constitutionalist candidate would be considered "fringe", is a sad statement, indeed.

excon


I agree that the establishment does not like him - he votes no on numerous spending bills.

Cough Up (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst041006.htm)

I like his stance on government spending and the income tax. :) How fringe is that?

But the advancements in mass media is surely not a sign of American decline.
With the internet primarily, and cable, no longer is news filtered through the editorial boards of only 3 or 4 network stations.




Grace and peace

Ron Paul has gone too far and said too much. He has threatened the bidness as usual politics and exposed the federal reserve for what it really is. He will be rendered ineffective, discredited and then discarded. He hasn't a chance in hell. I just hope they don't kill him.

But then again, is anyone really understanding what he is saying? I know some are, but most people can't digest the truth anymore, they have been lied to for so long.

Really?

Why do you say that, when he's a candidate that actually speaks of reality and truth.

Ron Paul's "reality" lacks any understanding of the fact that the USA has interests in other countries. He is an isolationist who denies the fact that American businesses do business with the rest of the world. His "reality" denies the fact that our enemies wish to come HERE to destroy us, and have made many attempts to do so, including 9/11. The USA can not be an Isolationist country in the modern world. It is not a reality-based position. There is nothing "real" about that position.



Didn't you watch the clips when he said on Fox, "actually, no one seems to be talking about this, but half of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi Arabians" - and of course they cut him off. He was, after all, only pointing out reality...

No he wasn't. His statement was an opinion, and not one based in fact. There are SOME Saudis that are active in Iraq's insurgency. But there are also Iranians, Lebanese, Syrians, Africans, Jordanians, Chechens, Algerians, Albanians, Turks, Egyptians, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Omanites, Yemenites, and insurgents of every Islamofascist background. The Saudis are not "half" of the insurgency. Paul is simply wrong in his statement.


Seems like the more reality and facts you spread, some people start saying "man this guy is out of touch with reality". Now this doesn't make any sense to me.

Perhaps it is simply a case of the more Ron Paul says, the more people see that he really is out of touch with reality. That makes perfect sense to me.

Do some research, Duckling, before accepting anyone's version of "reality", including Ron Paul's. THEN decide whether a particula candidate has opinions based in reality. Go and find out if most of the terrorists really are Saudis or not. Much of that information is open source. See if it is true. And if it isn't, then you have to question Paul's statement.

There's a reason that Ron Paul is a fringe candidate.

Elliot

Wrong. Ron Paul has countless times stated that he wants to do more trade with countries. He also read the 9/11 commission reports and the intelligence the CIA provided, to clarify that we need to get in touch with reality: the war is not over “Americans are free”. It has nothing to do with the fantasy that our mainstream media interprets for you Wolverine. Please join the rest of America in their support for the “truth”. And Ron Paul is the man who is providing us with the truth. Ron Paul is the man who is following the Constitution, better than any candidate out there.
We need to change our foreign policy. There is something scary about the American government having, for example, provided Saddam Hussein with bombs. It's scary that we trained the Iranian Secret Police to perform Nazi torture. Oh, it's pretty embarrassing that we were caught selling weapons, secretly, to the Iranians, while publicly calling them dangerous fanatics.
Wolverine, you know well that Ron Paul never asked for the USA to be an isolationist country. He is saying that our occupation of countries is what contributes to more hate for America. He says we need to change our foreign policy, and follow the advice of our founding fathers and the Constitution. Ron Paul is basically trying to get the reality set in that most terrorists do not hate us because we are free. Think about it. Canada is a free country and does not have the horrible relationship that we do with Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. Why? Research all this, from different types of perspective.

Yes his statements are based on facts. At least, they are based on more facts than anyone other candidate that wants to run for President.
YouTube - Terrorism: Ron Paul vs. Giuliani @ SC Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0)
Come on. Let's wake up and start looking at all the facts, and not only the ones we want to see. YouTube - Tribute to Those Killed by CIA Atrocities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coPRpGQyS_c)

I understand what you're saying Wolverine. I'm not claiming that there are no terrorists that hate American (there are some who obviously do). Ron Paul is not saying that there are no terrorists that hate America either. BUT, you have to acknowledge more of the facts that contribute to the problem, otherwise it will never go away.

"Think about it. Canada is a free country and does not have the horrible relationship that we do with Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. Why? Research all this, from different types of perspective. "

So is Britain - 7-7-05 bombings
So is Madrid - train bombings
So is bali - nightclub bombimgs
How about the bombings to take out Bhutto?
So is the Philippines


UPDATE 5-Assassination suspected in Philippine Congress blast | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSSP21539020071113?pageNumber=3)
" The largely Catholic Philippines has vowed to destroy the Abu Sayyaf, which is responsible for the country's worst militant attack, the bombing of a ferry outside Manila in 2004 in which over 100 people were killed."

Philippine Kidnappers Describe Beheading Hostages as 'Jihad' (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200208/22/eng20020822_101923.shtml)


What happened after the cartoons ?

The Cartoon Jihad (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/704xewyj.asp)


Don't blame the victims - look at the perpetrators and stop making excuses for them.

Wrong. Ron Paul has countless times stated that he wants to do more trade with countries. He also read the 9/11 commission reports and the intelligence the CIA provided, to clarify that we need to get in touch with reality: the war is not over “Americans are free”. It has nothing to do with the fantasy that our mainstream media interprets for you Wolverine. Please join the rest of America in their support for the “truth”. And Ron Paul is the man who is providing us with the truth. Ron Paul is the man who is following the Constitution, better than any candidate out there.
We need to change our foreign policy. There is something scary about the American government having, for example, provided Saddam Hussein with bombs. It’s scary that we trained the Iranian Secret Police to perform Nazi torture. Oh, it’s pretty embarrassing that we were caught selling weapons, secretly, to the Iranians, while publicly calling them dangerous fanatics.
Wolverine, you know well that Ron Paul never asked for the USA to be an isolationist country. He is saying that our occupation of countries is what contributes to more hate for America. He says we need to change our foreign policy, and follow the advice of our founding fathers and the Constitution. Ron Paul is basically trying to get the reality set in that most terrorists do not hate us because we are free. Think about it. Canada is a free country and does not have the horrible relationship that we do with Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. Why? Research all this, from different types of perspective.

Yes his statements are based on facts. At least, they are based on more facts than anyone other candidate that wants to run for President.
YouTube - Terrorism: Ron Paul vs. Giuliani @ SC Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0)
Come on. Let’s wake up and start looking at all the facts, and not only the ones we want to see. YouTube - Tribute to Those Killed by CIA Atrocities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coPRpGQyS_c)

I understand what you’re saying Wolverine. I’m not claiming that there are no terrorists that hate American (there are some who obviously do). Ron Paul is not saying that there are no terrorists that hate America either. BUT, you have to acknowledge more of the facts that contribute to the problem, otherwise it will never go away.

I am trying not to laugh at your response because I know that you are sincere in your attempt to understand and stop terrorism. But it's hard.

First of all, Islamic Terrorism dates back to the 8th Century with the advent of the Hashishin... the Muslim group that committed acts of murder against enemies. Their acts of terrorism and assassination were common during the 8th - 11th centuries.

Then there was the period of the Ottoman Empire (roughly 1300 - 1930). During that period there were countless acts of Islamic terror committed by the Ottomans. These include:

1513 - The Shiite Massacre - Sultan Selim I ("The Grim") murders roughly 40,000 Shiites as "heretics".
1571 - The Cypress Massacre - murder of 30,000 Christian Greeks and Armenians.
1785 - hundreds of Jews in Libya massacred by Ali Burzi Pasha
1821 - Constantinople Massacre, Smyrnia Massacre, Samothrace Massacre, Second Cyprus Massacre, 65,000 Greeks murdered.
1822 - 1824 - Chios Massacre, Kasos Massacre, Psara Masscre, 66,000 Greeks massacred.
1825 - Messolonghi Massacre, the entire city of 8,000 Greeks in Messolonghi is wiped out.
1847 - Assyrian Massacre - murder of 30,000 Assyrians in Kurdistan by the Ottomans.
1860 - Damascus Massacre, Murder of 3,000 Maronite Christians in Damascus, and destruction of the Christian Quarter.
1860 - Maronite Massacre, murder of 30,000 Maronite Christians.
1876 - Batak Massacre, murder of 5,000 Bulgarian men, women and children.
1897 - Crete Massacre, murder of 55,000 Greeks living on the island of Crete.
1915-1919 - Armenian Genocide (between 400,000 and 1.5 million dead), Assyian Genocide (275,000 dead) and Pontian Greek Genocide (353,000 dead).
1929 - Hebron Massacre, the entire Jewish population of the City of Hebron wiped out.

Please note that all of these acts of terrorism, resulting in millions of deaths, took place before the USA was involved in Middle Eastern affairs. It took place while the Muslims were in chage.

So the argument that the USA's involvement in the Middle East is the cause (or even A cause) of Islamic terrorism ignores 600 years of history and millions of dead. And the idea that poverty in the Middle East is a cause of terrorism is equally wrong, because the Ottomans were some of the richest people the world has ever seen. Similarly they were some of the most educated, cultured and technically knowledgeable people in history. Did you know that Arabic used to be the language of science and medicine alongside Latin? That's because the Muslims of this period were some of the best doctors and scientists in history. They were very well educated.

So... what we see from this is that Islamic terrorism has roots that predate US involvement in the Middle East. Islamic terrorism takes place regardless of education level or poverty level. And trying to link the USA to the root causes of terrorism is to completely miss where terrorism really comes from.

It comes from a fundamentalist sect of Muslims who believe that Allah has commanded them to conquer the world and either force it to become Muslim or kill anyone who chooses not to. It is that simple. There are no deep socio-psychological causes for terrorism. It isn't political. It isn't social. It's religious.

Trying to find some other cause where there is none is a waste of resources, time, and effort. Muslim terrorists kill because they believe their scripture tells them to. And the only way to counter that beliefe is with superior firepower. "Winning hearts and minds" isn't going to do the job. Their hearts and minds are owned by fundamentalist Islamic belief. Nothing you do is going to convince them that we are good people and not really their enemies. They don't care that we are good people, and by not being Muslim we ARE their enemies.

You are wasting your time trying to understand some deeper meaning and root cause for something that is extremely simple to understand.

Like Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Sometimes a terrorist is just a murderer, without any sort of politico-social agenda other than conquest and forcible conversion of the entire world. He kills because he believes his religion tells him to.

Elliot

It comes from a fundamentalist sect of Muslims who believe that Allah has commanded them to conquer the world and either force it to become Muslim or kill anyone who chooses not to. It is that simple. There are no deep socio-psychological causes for terrorism. It isn't political. It isn't social. It's religious.


I just want to clarify Elliot's response in case someone misunderstands. Elliot is not condemning all Muslims or Islam as a religion but just those extremists who do believe that if you are an infidel you need to be wiped out.

I am trying not to laugh at your response because I know that you are sincere in your attempt to understand and stop terrorism. But it's hard.

First of all, Islamic Terrorism dates back to the 8th Century with the advent of the Hashishin... the Muslim group that committed acts of murder against enemies. Their acts of terrorism and assasination were common during the 8th - 11th centuries.

Then there was the period of the Ottoman Empire (roughly 1300 - 1930). During that period there were countless acts of Islamic terror committed by the Ottomans.

Please note that all of these acts of terrorism, resulting in millions of deaths, took place before the USA was involved in Middle Eastern affairs. It took place while the Muslims were in chage.

So the argument that the USA's involvement in the Middle East is the cause (or even A cause) of Islamic terrorism ignores 600 years of history and millions of dead. And the idea that poverty in the Middle East is a cause of terrorism is equally wrong, because the Ottomans were some of the richest people the world has ever seen. Similarly they were some of the most educated, cultured and technically knowledgable people in history. Did you know that Arabic used to be the language of science and medicine alongside Latin? That's because the Muslims of this period were some of the best doctors and scientists in history. They were very well educated.

So... what we see from this is that Islamic terrorism has roots that predate US involvement in the Middle East. Islamic terrorism takes place regardless of education level or poverty level. And trying to link the USA to the root causes of terrorism is to completely miss where terrorism really comes from.

Elliot


I'm sorry your logic is so severely and fanatically flawed Wolverine. You're saying because terrorism existed by some people before the United States was born, this means that anything that the United States has ever done or will ever do, cannot possibly contribute to any form of terrorism. Are you serious when you make these types of conclusions? This isn't even logical.
YouTube - Tribute to Those Killed by CIA Atrocities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coPRpGQyS_c)

It's as if some fanatic telling me, “Duckling, you realize that you cannot say Germany had anything to do with oppressing Jewish people, because the Hitler regime arrived in the 1900s, yet Jews were being oppressed in 1500 B.C by the Egyptians”.

WHAT?

Wolverine, I hope I have shown you how twisted and faulty your logic is. I realize that you want to stop terrorism, as do I, but your approach is dangerous and flawed. The American people are tired of it. I've got to run, but trust that I'll take you on another day ;)

YouTube - Tribute to Those Killed by CIA Atrocities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coPRpGQyS_c)



You do realize that what's on YouTube is all submitted by people with an agenda, Its all slanted.

I’m sorry your logic is so severely and fanatically flawed Wolverine. You’re saying because terrorism existed by some people before the United States was born, this means that anything that the United States has ever done or will ever do, cannot possibly contribute to any form of terrorism. Are you serious when you make these types of conclusions? This isn’t even logical.
YouTube - Tribute to Those Killed by CIA Atrocities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coPRpGQyS_c)

It’s as if some fanatic telling me, “Duckling, you realize that you cannot say Germany had anything to do with oppressing Jewish people, because the Hitler regime arrived in the 1900s, yet Jews were being oppressed in 1500 B.C by the Egyptians”.

WHAT?

Wolverine, I hope I have shown you how twisted and faulty your logic is. I realize that you want to stop terrorism, as do I, but your approach is dangerous and flawed. The American people are tired of it. I’ve got to run, but trust that I’ll take you on another day ;)


Your you tube link:
I wonder who picked out Enya as the background music :)
Anyway - this is the impression I got. US bad and responsible for all deaths, even though they were NOT directly committed by the US.
For example :

Vietnam US military kills - no mention of who the communists NVA killed.
- here's a charming NVA technique
Punji stick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punji_stick)

The video blames the US for the Kymer Rouge? The US fought against Communism remember.

Pinochet in Chile - did the cia participate and tell him who to kill? Or is this blame by association.

Shah in Iran, he did the killings. Would we have been better off with Iran under USSR?

Afghanistan; USSR invaded them, if the Soviets sustained casualties that was their decision.

Iran- Contra. Yes fubar.

Iran-Iraq war. They killed each other. US suplies both sides. Agreed. Not good.

You might even include recent Ethiopia -Somalia events in there.



I'm not saying that the US is pure and innocent, there are atrocities committed by this country [ slavery, merican Indians for example ].

Thankfully, we the citizens hold our own accountable. For example Haditha, Abu Ghraib.



Now

Research what Mao, Pol pot, Stalin, S Hussein have done. Also,

Will you hold terrorists for accountable for homicide bombings, beheadings, etc..

I’m sorry your logic is so severely and fanatically flawed Wolverine. You’re saying because terrorism existed by some people before the United States was born, this means that anything that the United States has ever done or will ever do, cannot possibly contribute to any form of terrorism. Are you serious when you make these types of conclusions? This isn’t even logical.
YouTube - Tribute to Those Killed by CIA Atrocities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coPRpGQyS_c)

It’s as if some fanatic telling me, “Duckling, you realize that you cannot say Germany had anything to do with oppressing Jewish people, because the Hitler regime arrived in the 1900s, yet Jews were being oppressed in 1500 B.C by the Egyptians”.

No. It doesn't mean that Hitler had nothing to do with oppressing Jewish people. But it does mean that Hitler is not responsible for creating anti-Semitism any more than the USA is responsible for creating terrorism. They pre-existed both. What Hitler was guilty of was acting on that anti-semitism and taking it to new heights never before seen in human history.

But your example is flawed. Unlike Hitler, who was guilty of performing genocide, the USA really hasn't done anything to the Muslim fundamentalists. The USA has been the VICTIM of Muslim terror, not the perpetrator. Hitler was a perpetrator.

A better example would be to try to say that just as Hitler did not create anti-Semitism, so too OBL and Al Qaeda did not create Islamic terrorism. That statement would be true. But that is not evidence that we had anything to do with it. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Another example would be to say that just as the Jews did nothing to deserve the genocide of the Holocaust, so too the USA did not do anything to deserve to be attacked on 9-11 or any of the other terrorist attacks of the past 40 years.


WHAT?

That's what I'm trying to figure out.


Wolverine, I hope I have shown you how twisted and faulty your logic is. I realize that you want to stop terrorism, as do I, but your approach is dangerous and flawed. The American people are tired of it. I’ve got to run, but trust that I’ll take you on another day ;)

My logic isn't flawed. Trying to link the actions of the USA to those of Hitler is flawed logic. The USA was the victim of the Islamic terror that pre-existed the USA. Hitler was a perpetrator, not a victim.

And what the American people are tired of is doing NOTHING about Islamic terrorism while terrorists are free to attack us. What Americans are tired of is a bunch of political hacks and "scholars" who think that if they can come up with reasons that the Muslims should like us, that they will suddenly start liking us. Sorry, but that has never worked.

Furthermore, the point that you have missed completely in this discussion is that some Muslims attack other people regardless of the socio-political-economic status of the Muslims in question. They are terrorists regardless of anything that someone does or doesn't do to them. You are still trying to blame Islamic terrorism on the actions of the USA in oppressing Muslims, but history proves that some Muslims are militant regardless of whether they are oppressed or rich. That is the point you are missing. They attack without reason. They attack because their scripture tells them to according to their understanding. There is no way to get around that point.

If the USA had never existed and never been involved in Middle Eastern affairs, these fundamentalist Muslims would STILL be attacking those around them for no other reason than they believe G-d told them to. The fact that there is a USA simply gives them a nice juicy target. But that is the ONLY reason that the existence of the USA effects them.

I'm sure you'll try to take me on another day. The result will most likely be the same. You'll still be wrong.

Elliot

I just want to clarify Elliot's response in case someone misunderstands. Elliot is not condemning all Muslims or Islam as a religion but just those extremists who do believe that if you are an infidel you need to be wiped out.

That is correct. That is why I used the words I used in my posts... "fundamentalist sect" and "some Muslims" and "according to their interpretation". I am being very careful of who I accuse. My enemy isn't Islam, but rather Islamofascist terrorists and their supporters.

Elliot

That is correct. That is why I used the words I used in my posts... "fundamentalist sect" and "some Muslims" and "according to their interpretation". I am being very careful of who I accuse. My enemy isn't Islam, but rather Islamofascist terrorists and their supporters.

Elliot


Awhile back one of the posts dealt with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict via a given opinion expressed in an article. I agreed with the article and responded that the Palestinian people should stop listening to their leadership. I do want to make it clear that I do care for all people regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc... However I do reserve my total disdain for the "some Muslims" and those of "fundamentalist sects" that have challenged the gift of life and try to make our planet a living hell.

At my employment there is a department that handles our Middle Eastern clientele. Somewhere around seventy percent of those clients I end up helping since I'm in credit. I kind of know what to expect, being that I'm Jewish, although very Americanized, the culture doesn't come to me as surprise. Most of the Mid-Easterners have a born negotiators mentality and if you deal with them on those terms you usually do well on the business aspect. I'm guessing but I would say that sixty percent or higher, when here in the States try to mimic or acclimate to American culture, even when visiting as tourists. I think Elliot sees as many tourists and businessman from outside the States in NYC (Manhattan), as I do in Vegas. So there again for the most part they are just regular people, no different than many of us.


Bobby

Ron Paul will not disavow his Neo-Nazi supporters according to this report by Andrew Walden of 'American Thinker ' American Thinker: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html)


Paul's campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize. Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.


On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul's "grassroots" fundraising site and organizes other racists to "game You Tube" to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube's rankings. Writes Williams, "Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his n*gg*rberry." Holland points out, "BJB" stands for "burn Jew burn". BJB's internet signature is, "Nothing says lovin' like a Jew in the oven."


Williams is not Paul's only supremacist supporter. "Former" KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke's website White Civil Rights (http://www.whitecivilrights.com/), calls Ron Paul "our king" and cheers while "Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show." Duke also includes a "Ron Paul campaign update" and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts. These articles are posted right next to articles such as "Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud" and "Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness"-featuring a map of Hitler's Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn't get the point. Apparently "Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom" is attractive to those who ape the world's worst tyrants and genocidaires.